So, this is an interesting point in comparison. AOC recently got an 80 on my metric, while Jill Stein is similar ideologically to AOC and got a 55. Bernie got an 83 recently, but Cornel West got a 52. So what separates a good leftist from a bad leftist on my metric?
While it's true that leftists like AOC and Bernie are somewhat ideologically similar to West and Stein, there are also some differences as well. One key different is running as a democrat. Ideally, I would prefer my candidates to work within the democratic party. I only really go with spoilers as a last resort, after working within the democratic party doesnt work. Going with third party candidates is risky, and I basically resort to that after trying everything else. I ultimately want to get someone to win on the democratic ticket. My decision to go with a third party candidate normally comes after the democrats decide to ignore me and go full steam ahead with some establishment centrist. And I do believe that there should be some cost to going third party. In order for a third party candidate to be worth it, they shouldn't just be equal to a democrat but far superior. The way I set my purity test up, I give a 10 point advantage to democrats, and given that I also ain't likely to go third party if they end up performing similarly to a democrat, they probably have to get around 15+ points above the democrat to really stand out for me. This is fair. if I want to go the third party route, the democrat must either suck, or the third party person be very good. In 2016, I grappled with my stein vs clinton decision, ultimately choosing stein, but I did admit, if I did the metric at the time, stein probably would've only scored maybe about equal with Clinton. Why? Because she had better policy positions, but Clinton had more experience. Which brings me to point two.
The experience gap. Bernie is a senator who has been in office since the 80s or 90s. AOC is a congresswoman who has been in since 2018, and while a bit green around the ears, is quickly learning and improving. I like people who have some level of experience, running for president. I like someone who knows how congress works, or how the presidency works. They don't need massive amounts of experience, when people pulled the experience argument on Bernie, it only worked because they were pushing powerhouses who had been training for the role for decades. Hillary actively worked within her husband's administration. Then she was senator and secretary of state. She was angling for the white house since 2000. Joe Biden was a senator in office since the 1970s, and was Obama's VP. You literally cant get more experienced candidates than this. While Bernie had decades of experience, including legislative experience, he just didn't have as much as the people who had trained for the job for literal decades building a resume. By the way, I don't think establishment candidates with decades of experience make them good. I care more about policy positions at that point. The difference between bernie and clinton/biden is a matter of diminishing returns. once one achieves a reasonable level of core competence, I don't care about additional experience. And Bernie hits that level. AOC doesn't fully hit it, and I did knock a few points off, but she clearly knows enough to not have some of the batcrap insane positions Jill Stein or third party candidates do.
JIll Stein and Cornel West have ZERO relevant experience for the job. None. I think west was a college professor, which makes him very intelligent in some ways dont get me wrong, but he has no hands on DC experience. Jill Stein is an activist. She calls herself a doctor, but then she panders to anti vax? So that's not good. And Stein's biggest thing to throw on her resume is "gets arrested protesting", which might work for some of the leftist weirdos she's trying to pander to and their insane protest culture, but doesn't necessarily appeal to me on an experience level. She might show the leftists some level of ideological purity, but purity, while somewhat important to me, isnt INSANELY important to me. I care about as much for purity in the terms of dedication to her causes as I do about experience.
Speaking of which I did take a few points off for purity. While I don't believe she's actively working with Russia, the greens do benefit from their media coverage through RT, and it appears to me the greens dont want to upset the apple cart in that sense. So I do believe that the greens may be somewhat compromised in the sense that they may not wanna say anything that pisses off putin, even if they aren't overtly or actively seeking or accepting their help. I believe this is a compromising factor, especially insofar as national security goes.
Speaking of national security. Leftists like Stein and West go insanely far in trying to be anti war. Bernie and AOC seem to understand the reasonable balance that comes with their position. They have to be somewhat anti war, but they also understand the functionalist underpinnings of American defense policy and they dont throw out all pragmatic considerations in their stances on foreign policy. AOC and Bernie might be outraged with the behavior of Netanyahu on Israel, and might take stances, but they also seem to make it clear that they're also not pro hamas weirdos. Stein and West are too activist brained to have the same sense of nuance. Their stances on foreign policy are insane, wanting to reduce the defense budget by something crazy like 50-80%. We can't do that. That would open up and our allies up to attack from countries...like Russia. Which is precisely why putin probably helps elevate these guys. But you cant do that if you're president. You need someone who is principled, but also pragmatic, and AOC just never did anything that really hard alienated me. yes, she's too my left, yes, she might be slightly too extreme for me at times, BUT....nothing she says is a dealbreaker.
The same goes on domestic policy. Greens like Stein and West push wish lists with little idea of how to pay for them. West seemed to do this weird "I'm lefter than the other leftists" thing, and that might work when winning a purity test among leftist activist weirdos, but it doesn't mean you can govern worth a crap. Meanwhile, Bernie and AOC do have that experience and legislative backgrounds. They might have their ideologies, even calling themselves "democratic socialists" and pushing worker cooperatives and codetermination, but they also balance this with pragmatism.
Which is something I personally wanna drive home. I ain't overly opposed to leftists, as long as they're pragmatic and practical about it. I know Hillary and Biden and the DNC have made pragmatism a bad word as they used it as a cudgel to push their centrist establishment candidates in a battle of I'm more pragmatic than anyone else, BUT....to some extent, we can't throw out the baby with the bathwater here. We need some level of pragmatism in government. AOC and Bernie have it, Stein and West do not.
That's also, by the way, why I was lukewarm on Marianne Williamson. She had all the right policy positions, but she didn't have the experience or pragmatic experience to pass her stuff. She still was solid on my metric, sometimes I would prefer an activist virtue signalling over a more experienced politician who offers nothing (which is why I voted for Stein in 2016 and Hawkins in 2020), but make no mistake, I ideally want the best of both worlds.
If leftists struggle on anything, it is pragmatism. Many of them come from outside the system, have zero experience inside the system, and think the very idea of experience is corrupting and bad. I admit, I have a bit of this syndrome myself. it's why i dont wanna run for office (or one of the reasons). I do wanna be that guy pushing my vision without being corrupted by the influences in the system that might take my eyes off the prize. BUT, I still understand the pressures within the system, and how we need someone who at least has some idea what they're doing before they do it. Someone like Bernie or AOC who work within the system but are also progressive as hell, are the best of both worlds.
And ultimately, thats what I want for president. Someone as progressive as Bernie or AOC in their own way (but maybe a bit more UBI oriented than GND oriented), but also experienced, with tons of insider experience. I can even give Yang some credit, despite my misgivings of the guy and his awful political instincts. he still is plugging for UBI behind the scenes. And even if he might fail my purity tests due to the compromises that he makes, i still, at some level, understand, that the dude is trying in his own way.
That's all I can ask for. That my politicians try. But I would prefer someone who knows what they're doing over someone who just virtue signals with no indication of knowing what they're doing.
I only went for the virtue signal in 2016 and 2020 because I feel like the dems undercut my preferred candidates and ignored me and my concerns completely. It felt justified at the time, and I cant say I regret it, but I won't be doing that in 2024, and I hope to avoid that in 2028. Keep in mind, someone like Stein or West or Hawkins are never my first choice. More my last resort after working within the system fails. At that point, I decide that virtue signalling my priorities is more important than being a team player because what good is the team if it doesn't represent me? That's just how I see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment