So, recently I wrote an article explaining my stance on Forward's pitch against voting solely around ranked choice voting. I got mixed reception. On the positive end, someone told me "at least someone has a brain", but then on the more negative end, I've been told that I'm being divisive. This is obviously more addressed at the negative end of things.
Here's the thing. I actually stand for things. I have ideals, convictions, things I want to see implemented in society. And I am here to advocate for them. If we're on the same page, cool. If we're not, well, don't be surprised if I don't consider you a political ally. But something that's been annoying me with both Forward and the Democrats, is how they seem to value "civility" and "compromise", and working with people who very obviously aren't on the same page as me. And how I'm divisive and condescending toward people I don't agree with.
And I'm just here to say that I. DONT. CARE.
Seriously. While I do have an issue with people who are excessively purity testy, or people who will scream as people violate their sacred cows of ideology and policy, even slightly, at the other end of the spectrum are the people who seem to have no standards at all. Sorry, I have no intention of making nice with centrist democrats, or republicans fleeing from Trump's mess, and who wish to water down the platforms I like. I literally left the democrats because I didn't wanna deal with this BS, and now I gotta deal with it in Forward?
I admit, polarization is an issue in society. But, for me, it's mostly because we're polarized around the wrong issues, in the wrong ways. We're obsessed with identity issues, with the left being morally correct but completely insufferable and divisive about how they go about it, and the right being morally incorrect, but able to actually win over supporters because the left has gone crazy in their own way.
On the flip side, on economics, there's this insufferable culture of compromise and meeting the right half way, while the right plays for keeps and dominates the overton window.
In order to fix American society, the left needs to tone down the social issues, while largely keeping the same substance (being center left instead of far left, which is more of a rhetorical shift than a policy shift), while it needs to be bolder on economics. My attitude on economics is much like FDR's, who said "the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred."
We need to be for what we are for with no craps given. I don't care if I piss off and alienate people, I welcome their hatred, just like FDR did. We need a leader with balls, who stands for what they stand for, is willing to fight for it, and doesn't make compromise a virtue in and of itself.
This does not mean never compromise. But the democrats start out compromising, then compromise more, then more, and then you get something like the inflation reduction act where you get almost nothing. Play your hand, push things as far as you can, if you have to settle, so be it, but dont just do this weird circlejerk of compromise.
I feel like forward is falling into that trap too. Like, this whole "we have to make nice with the republicans" thing. Why? They literally dont stand for anything andrew yang did in 2020 except RCV. We have nothing in common with them ideologically. They are obstacles to us getting nice things. Why should I be buddy buddy with these people? Sorry, not a "humanity first" sentiment, but that's where I differ from Andrew yang. I'm not SO NICE I'll let people walk over me because I'm afraid I might alienate them. I'd rather be straightforward about what I am and what I'm about, and if people don't like that, tough. I ain't for everyone, and not everyone is for me.
That's not to say we should be overly purity testy. I have issues with the other extreme too. Can we differ on exact policy at times? Sure. As long as we have the same overall ethos, that's fine. You're never gonna agree with someone completely. But work with someone i agree with less than 50% of the time? unlikely. You see, it's a balance. You wanna stand in your power and be for what you are for, but you also need SOME flexibility. If people differ slightly in methods or policy, fine, if you're getting 70-80% there, that's a huge improvement.
Remember what I said, pick your battles. Lay out your top priorities, and be purity testy as heck on them, but then be more flexible the less important the issue is. Ultimately political coalitions are full of people who have slightly different ideologies and goals, but who can all walk away with something they like. That's what I want.
Honestly, forward 1.0 was great for me. UBI and human centered capitalism as a centerpiece but then was a bit more flexible on other policy. Cultural issues deemphasized. Maybe a bit more center left in practice. Ya know?
The point is, you need to stick to some goals and standards, and you shouldn't be surprised when people like me get pissed when we feel abandoned. Yang's movement was built around UBI, and me, being a huge UBI supporter, supported his movement. But if he no longer pushes for it, well, that arrangement is off. I care about my ideals. I care about my policies. I will vote for the candidate who conforms most to what I want. I don't care if you're democrat, green, forwardist, or, dare I say it, republican (although let's face it, we'll NEVER see a republican under this current alignment be for things I like, but hypothetically I could back one who was serious about UBI, for example). I will take progress however I can get it and will push things most in the direction I want to go. Talking me down or talking me out of it is just likely to make me hostile or tune you out. I don't wanna hear excuses, I wanna hear "sure, I support UBI too, let's get it done."
No comments:
Post a Comment