So, I want to discuss a common disagreement among the left, between the bernie or busters, who votes their conscience, and "pragmatic" liberals who vote blue no matter who. As we've seen in recent months when there was tension between Vaush's community, and Kyle Kulinski's, there's a huge difference in value systems among the left.
Some people are more principled. I fall in this camp. We vote our consciences, regardless of the consequences. The pragmatic camp acts like we're stupid and irrational, but as we see it, we believe in democracy, and we believe we are responsible for what we vote for. There's a common saying, suggesting you cant complain if you didnt vote, but if the choices are bad, and you chose one of them, aren't you the one who can't complain, as you put them in office? Another aspect of the whole distinction is the fact that a lot of us who vote our consciences are voting within a system captured by malevolent interests who perpetuate the system of bad choices onto us, and the only way out is to refuse to play their game. This plays a huge part in my thinking. I understand that the American democratic system is captured by two parties, who basically act like internet ISPs. They have de facto monopolies, they're isolated from competition, and they have little reason to listen to voters. The only way to make them listen is to sabotage them by refusing to support them, and if they still don't, ultimately replace them. This is difficult to do, but necessary if your views are poorly represented by the system as it is. The trade off of whether a principled vote is worth it is up to each individual, but it is our choice to make, and "pragmatic" liberals are best to heed that.
On the flip side, it can be argued that rather than look at voting for a principled framework, we should look at voting as simply choosing the best choice to get us where we want to go. And that's the democrats. We might not like the democrats, but the democrats are going to get us to where we want to go far more than republicans will, and since one or the other is going to win, you should choose the one closer to what you are, in hopes that it leads to positive changes. You'll never get what you want, but you'll get something closer to the other option.
Here's my problem with this idea. While it makes sense in isolation, it ignores the larger context of the duopoly I pointed out. It ignores how captured the American system is by different interests. It ignores how, if you do the above, you'll never get what you want, because that party closer to you isn't on your side. On the contrary, they're controlled opposition designed to screw you. Yeah, I will cede that its better in theory to eat a half a bowl of crap rather than a whole bowl as nina turner would say, but if we eat the half a bowl of crap, how are we ever gonna move toward a system where we don't eat crap at all?
Obviously, all choices must be contextualized, and VBNMWers ignore all context. They try to force a choice on you in isolation. A or B, that's it, and if you dont choose A over B you're stupid and hurting your own cause. You're not supposed to look at the man behind the curtain manipulating this little puppet show in the first place. You're not supposed to have principles. Youre supposed to be so scared by the immediate consequences of the other choice that you fall in line. It's a shock and awe campaign designed too manipulate you through fear into choosing inferior alternatives, rather than fiighting to build better ones in the long term.
In all fairness, this is where I have to argue with myself. I made this exact argument in 2016 with Hillary vs Trump. And while Trump won, I may have miscalculated a few things. I thought the democrats would be forced to change in light of trump's failure, the just waited until democratic morale was lower to try the same scam with Biden. And admittedly, I did not exapect Trump to gain as much popularity as he did. Trump IS seemingly realigning the parties, which is bad news for everyone. People actually like the dude, despite him, in my opinion, being objectively the worst president we've ever had (and I did a tier list too, it's no competition). That's the scary thing. Republicans, rather than being horrified by the guy, are dying on their sword for him. They're refusing to take vaccines, they believe the election was stolen from them, and Trump himself is almost Hitler like in his temperament and ability to manipulate the public. A trumpist republican party may very well be fascism on the rise, with January 6th being our beer hall putsch.
Could I vote blue to stop Trump if he runs again in 2024? maybe, no promises. But, Trump does seem to present a unique existential threat to American democracy in my opinion, and while I believed many of these claims were hyperbolic for the most part, looking at how 2020 turned out, and then the insurrection kind of changed my opinion a bit. The election should not have been so close, and I think 2020 demonstrated 2016 was not a fluke or simply a reaction to HRC being bad (although that was part of it). People genuinely like the guy, and those people are susceptible to fascism. They're authoritarians, and the party has been leaning that way since Nixon. But, with Trump saying the quiet part out loud, and so many people enthusiastically eating that up, uh, that's scary. So, maybe I would consider voting for a lesser evil just to stop Trump from winning again, since the dude does seem to pose an existential threat to the country no other individual does at this time, and realigning the parties around him in particular seems like the worst case scenario. Keep in mind, the next 40 years are what's important to me, not just the next 4. And we could be in for a world of hurt for the next 40 if Trump is venerated in the same way as Reagan.
But other than that specific case, is it healthy to vote blue no matter who? Not just no, but hell no. It is putting the blinders on, focusing on the immediate consequences out of "pragmatism", and showing a complete disregard for long term planning and aspirations. As you can see with the Trump winning in 2024 case, I am showing long term planning and acting in accordance with principles, not simply focusing on the damage of the next 4 years, but playing the long game.
But that's what separates me from a "pragmatic" vote blue no matter whoer. "Pragmatists" seem to have no concept of long term planning, delaying gratification, or pushing back against a system hostile to their interests. They'll vote for scraps, virtue signal about how everyone else should too, and shame anyone who says "nope, not doing it, this is BS".
This is also why they're so bad at policy. Rather than design policies from the ground up to actually be effective, their short term pragmatic mindsets cause them to support lukewarm incremental changes no one really likes, leading to highly inefficient monstrocities held together by tons of "duct tape" that dont really solve anything. So no, I really ain't inclined to think like a pragmatist. I have my policies, I have my ideas, I want them implemented, I want it done right (although I can bend a little, keep in mind how critical I am of everyone else's UBI policies, I'm not such a purist I would turn down a well designed NIT or yang's UBI plan), and I'm not gonna settle for bad faith scraps the DNC wants to offer me as an afterthought.
I believe in voting for the person you want to win. Now, you can compromise and vote pragmatically here and there, but such pragmatic compromises should be mild, and you shouldn't give up your core values just to get something marginally less crappy. Which is how I feel about the democrats. I can compromise and support someone I agree with 70-80% of the time on major issues. But what if they're only supportive of half of that, say around 30-40%? That's how I feel about democrats. Like, you're barely getting anything at all once you compromise your principles, and then compromise them again to appease joe manchin, and then again to get past mitch mcconnell. At the end of the day, you get nothing, and you look like a fool for it. Nah, I want someone who at least sees the world somewhat in the same way as me. Ideally a Yang, but I'd settle for a Bernie or Hawkins, while just laughing and feeling insulted at being offered a Hillary, or Biden, or harris. Not interested in perpetuating an oligopoly that doesn't benefit me, sorry.
No comments:
Post a Comment