So, Yang went on the Good Time Show and discussed his new forward initiative. And I have to say, despite my misgivings, his argument was persuasive. He mostly railed against the two party system, and how the system is broken and politicians are incentivized not to solve problems. He mentioned how they tend to avoid solving things and that problems are best left unsolved, something I feel like the democrats do abuse regularly. They'd rather run on band aid fixes that will need adjustment every few years than permanent solutions that take the issues off the table. And he also mentioned how the democrats could have implemented ranked choice voting in a lot of cases, but they refuse to, because they fear the increased choice could mean their guys don't get reelected. So, they're basically abusing the system, doing nothing, and then telling people they have to vote for them. I fricking knew it. Ugh. Again, none of this is any surprise to me here on this blog. I've been calling this crap out for years.
So, Yang decided to push this with his third party, arguing before we can solve any other problem, we need fix the political system. Which, I get, don't get me wrong, but I still like to actually solve...problems. I'm not really sure how successful Andrew's initiative will be and I fear his actual values will be lost as the party grows without a UBI focus.
Thankfully, Yang addressed this issue too. He mentioned that HE will support UBI and stuff like that if HE runs, but other members of forward may not. Well, let me put it this way, if that's the case, I support HIM, but I fear supporting other forwardists. The fact is, I care about my issues more than anything in terms of politics, and I fear that as this organization grows, the culture can change and it might end up falling into the same pitfalls the democrats are into. Ya know, where they become complacent, and are obsessed with not alienating certain stakeholders, and im gaslit any time I want nice things, etc.
We've discussed purity testing lately. It seems very clear that there are four issues I really am settling around. UBI, Universal healthcare, free college/student debt forgiveness, and climate change legislation. Ranked choice voting is arguably #5. Maybe even 6#, depends how much I would prioritize housing, given we are in a housing crisis. It's important. It made my list. But it's nowhere near the top. Ultimately, it's because it's, at best, a means to an end to achieving my other priorities. And I suspect that it might be better to use a third party to push purity tests and twist the arms of the democrats to support it to save the country. After all, that's what third parties are normally good at. Not necessarily at directly getting things done, but twisting arms, causing the parties to shift in order to maintain the duopoly. I don't see the duopoly going away, but I do think if we hold voters hostage where voters dont guarantee support unless certain conditions are met, I think that that would force the parties to do a little dance to win voters back. It's a game of chicken. The democrats like to hold the system hostage themselves and bully people into supporting them, but I feel like if we call out their crap and push back enough, well, they'll have to recognize us as a valuable constituency and that we aren't pissed off.
Keep in mind, most of the time, the two party system does a good enough job to win people over. It is only during the tail end of alignments and realignment periods where third parties start popping up. Normally people are satisfied enough that they will vote for the two parties and not defect to a third party movement. I mean, ideas like the 8 hour work day and the minimum wage were pushing by labor activists as early as the 1880s. We've discussed who I would vote for in previous elections and from the 1880s on until FDR's day, I largely would be supporting third party movements. In the 1930s, the problems got so bad that the democrats HAD to respond with adopting these concerns to maintain control of the country, lest it get be taken over by communists or fascists. And they succeeded, for 36 glorious years we had the new deal coalition, before it imploded in the 1960s due to civil rights. And thus paved the way for the crapshow we have today.
I'm not sure we CAN break the two party duopoly permanently, but I do believe we can twist the arms of the parties and realign the country. It's been what I've been calling for since I started this blog. I admire what Andrew is doing, but I struggle to back a party centered solely around RCV. I could see it being a major issue for me. As I said, it's arguably #5 or #6. But I'd rather push for my actual ideas, and pressure the parties to bend to them. That said, my main issue with Yang is one of strategy. I do not believe his party is the best approach to solving immediate issues.
But, at the same time, I also feel like it's one of personality and temperament. Yang is a soother. He's someone who would rather deescalate tensions, even if it means putting his own goals on hold. At the same time, I'm a fighter. I'm more like say, bernie sanders, who never, or almost never stops fighting for what he believes in.
Still, I am largely satisfied with Yang's explanation of where he stands here, and I feel more at ease that he still believes the same stuff, he just opened up the party to those who don't. Again, I'll support him as long as he runs on his original 2020 platform (although it can evolve a bit). But, that doesn't mean that I'll necessarily support other forwardists. I AM too purity testy, and I just ain't giving that up. I'm an independent first, supporting my own agenda, and a member of any party second. I left the GOP in 2011-2012 after I realized my own agenda and ideology doesn't align with theirs any more. I left the democrats in spirit after 2015-2016 after they tried to bully people into supporting their party after refusing to be progressive. And my support of forward carries the same requirements. I will support those who align with my priorities, but the less they do, the less likely I will to support them.
Yang is cool. His personality seems a little too weak and conciliatory for politics at times, but his actual vision is based. His party however...I mean, while RCV is a more minor priority of mine, it may not be enough in and of itself to sway my vote. We'll have to see. I'll have to see how 2024 shapes up and I'll have to establish a more solid metric based on the spectrum of options.
Also, I know I bashed Yang on Trump too, and he said some things about Trump on this podcast. He mentioned how if he wins again, he will probably stack his administration with die hard loyalists and be even more extreme and authoritarian than last time. I agree. Hence my own uneasiness with Trump running again, and why I'm pushing so hard for prosecuting the guy. I mean, I'm going to be honest. Trump is such a serious threat I actually considered "voting blue no matter who" if he runs in 2024 just to keep him out. I'm leaning against doing this believing I must keep advocating for my causes and keeping the pressure on, but I've considered it. Note that this would only apply to Trump, not any other republican who may run in his place. I mean again its priorities like UBI and a distaste for the two party system that bring me to supporting forward in the first place. Not sure I'm willing to take a chance on it if it isn't fully supportive of at least some of my major priorities.
Regardless of our differences though, I do think Yang and I are on the same page with priorities. That said, I will be supporting HIM if he chooses to run in 2024, but anyone else in his party will need to *gasp* meet my purity tests. Sorry, I do care about issues and I will support them and ruthlessly hold candidates to my ideal platform. That's just how I am. But I'm glad that I feel like I can still support Yang himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment