Deal with it.
But no really. There was a thread in one sub I'm on asking if people who voted for Stein in 2016 regret it in any way. And I can't say that I do, outside of one caveat. But even then it is kinda forgivable given what a turd Hillary was. And I really wanted to make a post for why this is the case.
Individual votes don't shift elections
I know people don't wanna hear this, but my individual vote is NOT likely to shift the outcome of any election in any meaningful way. Even if I voted for Hillary, there would still be tens of thousands of other Jill Stein voters in my state. And there would still be millions of active Trump supporters.
I know dems LOVE to place the blame of losing elections on a handful of defectors who go off and do their own thing, but at the end of the day, votes only matter collectively. And no single voter is going to influence the election. What matters is trends. Not individuals. And while I try to be my own trend setter forging my own path, I understand that any candidate's loss is actually a complex interaction of various things going on at once. Trump just happened to be a perfect storm of things going wrong for dems in 2016. Hillary had a massive lead, and threw it away. Part of this was over alienating Bernie supporters like myself. Part of this was over just not resonating with voters, while Trump did. Part of it was over random scandals she faced. FBI investigations. Even Russian influence. All of those factors were real and did impact clinton's chances.
But at the end of the day, macro trends defined the election results, not individuals. And ultimate...
The only person to blame for Hillary Clinton's loss...is Hillary Clinton
Ultimately, I don't think it's fair to blame the voters for the most part. Voters make the best decisions they can make with the information available. Some are ignorant, yes, and I think we have a major "low information voter" problem in this country. Ultimately, just as voters are defined by trends on a macro level, the two parties put out tons of propaganda to support their side, convincing their voters that they are better for the country than the other side. And if not enough people came out to support Hillary Clinton...then that tells me that people didn't want Hillary Clinton.
And why would you? She didn't really offer much of value to anyone. She alienated large swaths of the left and the independent vote. No one actually wanted her. No one was enthused about her. And while yes, a lot of voters are stupid and I'm perfectly willing to admit that, ultimately, Clinton needed to do a better job. Bernie would have won. He had better poll numbers and his finger was more on the pulse of what I think Americans wanted in 2016. An economic populist with real solutions for the people. Clinton was the wrong candidate at the wrong time. She would've been a decent candidate had she won in 2008, but in 2016 she just ran into the wrong trends. 2016 was either a realigning year or the start of a long realignment period, and it was the worst time for her to run. Wrong person, wrong platform, wrong time. But her pride didn't allow her to see it. And that's actually a problem too.
The problems with voter shaming
Hillary Clinton was the epitome of this entitled attitude the democrats have and still have that they are entitled to votes. They believe that everyone MUST come out and support them and that if they don't they're bad or evil. Heck, the fact that people are still litigating this from the side of the dems is really just...endemic that they haven't learned the lesson they need to learn.
But democrats, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO PEOPLES' VOTES. You have to go out and EARN them. You have to bring your case to the American people. You cannot go into an election just taking people for granted if you can't afford to lose them. I know all political parties are made up of coalitions of voters, and a successful politician has to keep their voters happy or they will begin to defect. And if you have an issue with people not voting for you, then your problem is the fact that you did not keep your coalition happy and together. Coalitions work because all parties within can feel like they walked away with some sort of win. All Hillary really had to do was to embrace medicare for all, an actual free college plan worth a darn, and student debt forgiveness. Hell, I would've LOVED to have voted for Clinton if that UBI program she was thinking of actually saw the light of day. But...she didn't do that. She instead ran the other way and came off as completely and utterly hostile to economic progressives like me. And in my book, that's why she lost.
You can't just do nothing for your voters and then demand they show up for you. And she learned that the hard way.
The threat of Trump
While the dems were sounding the threat of Trump all along, that's what they do. It's called negative campaigning. And while all politicians are gonna engage in various forms of this, the dems kinda went all in with it, hoping that the threat of trump would motivate voters. Admittedly, their worst fears ended up being quite valid in practice, but at the time, it sounded hyperbolic, and there was zero reason we should've paid attention. They were doing nightmare scenarios about all of the old SCOTUS justices dying and trump replacing 4 people. He did end up replacing 3, admittedly, but one seat was stolen, one died because they wouldnt resign when obama could fill it, and one guy was pressured to retire by the republicans and they got three justices. And as for the anti democracy stuff, well, we have separation of powers, and I didn't see a reason to take his rhetoric seriously until he actually committed January 6th.
The fact is, all candidates do this. Coming from being a republican in 2008, I faced the same stuff from the other side that election cycle. That Obama was gonna take over the country and turn us socialist and blah blah blah...and...it never happened. And Obama was a reasonably competent president. So...I'm familiar with this tactic.
And even if Trump wasn't the nominee. Cruz would've been given the same treatment. Or Rubio. Or Jeb! Any of them. Because the dems' primary goal is to sell you on their party, and in lieu of actually offering positive change, they decided to go in with the fear of what will happen if you don't vote for them. It's a rhetorical tactic by used them to maintain voter discipline. Nothing more. because they really don't want you to defect.
But...if I didn't feel like voting for them was worth it, then it backfired, didn't it? And whose fault is it, the voters? No, not unless you believe that the voters have an obligation to support a specific party, which they don't. And let no one tell you otherwise, that's what they want you to think. No, it's actually their own faults for not winning the voters over where they are and offering something more than negative campaigning.
The democrats could've prevented this, but didn't
Ya know, I was listening to an Andrew Yang podcast recently, I forget which one, but at one point it mentioned how the dems had the opportunity to codify Roe v. Wade. And...they didn't. Why? because they thought it would be a great factor to motivate people going to the polls. because what do you do if you have nothing of value to offer? Fear. The dems like to string people along, they dont want to fix problems, or avert them. They literally create trolley problems in order to motivate voters to avert them. And if they fail...then the bad outcome happens.
Again, does this mean that voters should acquiesce? Ultimately it depends on your value system, but I would say no. Because that is a great perversion of democracy. Vote for me or the country gets it? That's taking the system hostage. Dems deny doing this, they try to shift the blame to the voter, but that's what they're doing. And in my value system, I see that as an affront to my values, and I normally feel compelled to rise to their challenge, and look them dead in the eye and say "yes, it was me who cost you the election, so what are you gonna do about it?"
Often times, they won't do anything other than voter shame. Because ultimately they dont wanna do what i want them to do. And they'd rather lose me as a voter than try to appease me. Their loss.
My value system is different from most liberals/leftists
You see, for most liberals and leftists, the above tactics work. Because a lot of liberals and leftists have an ideology based on empathy and caring, as well as virtue signalling how much they care about stuff. Postmodernism is big on the left these days, and it's not without coincidence. It's useful to the democratic party. Not only does it unite a lot of demographics of marginalized and underprivileged groups under their banner, but it also acts as a value system to maintain voter discipline. Because democrats love to guilt trip each other into voting for the democrats, if not for their own self interests, but those of all of these various minorities and underprivileged groups. ANd those guys are used like hostages to bully a lot of liberals and leftists, who are into performative politics and virtue signalling how much they care about those groups, into supporting them.
But I'm...an ex conservative. And I just completely lack that ethical framework in my perspective. My views are based more on secular humanism, and my liberalism is based on a more old school perspective on the term, before postmodernism became dominant on the left. If anything, I see my value system as competitive with theirs. I emphasize economics and tend to be a bit more moderate and flexible on other issues while they're all about the social issues to the point of being willing to abandon the economic. And that also benefits the democratic party given they're also trying to bring in a lot of suburban moderates who don't want their taxes to go up to pay for the kinds of social programs I want.
See how the democratic strategy works and how they try to bring their coalition together? This is why I fight them so hard. Because I fully understand if they are successful in molding this coalition, that stuff like UBI, universal healthcare, free college, student debt forgiveness? They'd be impossible. Because the democratic ideology is gonna trend toward economic moderation and social leftism. Whereas I'm a social moderate and more economically left than them.
And unlike them, performative acts of caring do little to nothing for me. I tend to embrace some elements of my former conservatism except adapted for liberalism like the idea that it's okay to be somewhat selfish, but that we need to be smart with it. I recognize politics as a way for various factions to express their rational self interests, and I just encourage people to do it within a left wing context.
Heck, my whole perspective is based on such ethics.
Of course, to the performative leftist, I'm on the left for "all the wrong reasons" and they don't really want me here. Even though the vast majority of them would, push comes to shove, probably vote for the right themselves if it suited them. So this is only used to bully lefties around, because it works.
Well..it doesn't work on me. And I kinda recognize that my politics might make me more of an independent voter who leans left, rather than a democrat. And while dems need voters like me to win elections, if they can't appeal to them, well..that's their problem.
They're also banking on being able to get other voters who DO go over to the right fairly often. And a lot of their outreach is about appealing to those moderate voters even if it throws voters like me under the bus.
Conclusion
As such, I don't really feel bad for my decisions in 2016. The democrats had this grand strategy I just outlined, and it...backfired immensely. Turns out they do need the left after all. And while they do the guilting behavior, it doesn't really work on me for the most part. But ultimately, I believe the democrats have to earn over voters and if they dont earn me over that's their problem, not mine.
Caveat #1: The one aspect I regret voting for Stein
I understand I was making the best of four choices, but MAN stein kinda sucked. She had NO real way to pay for her ideas, put forward a progressive wish list, and she probably wasn't even that dedicated to UBI anyway (although in 2016, no one was). Also, she was anti vax.
I just held my nose for her knowing that while hillary was a lot more pragmatic and practical I just couldnt stand the idea of voting for her because of how offputting she was.
But yeah, reevaluating it now, perhaps clinton would've been a better choice in that regard. Yes, in my own value system, it's possible clinton was a better choice. Simply because I've kinda soured on "wish list" candidates at this point and put a lot more emphasis into the practical implementations of my own ideas. Bernie mightve been a brilliant policy maker with tons of policies that would've worked, but stein was not.
Caveat #2: Thinking about 2024
Sadly, I do have to treat Trump as a much more serious threat than I did back in 2016. The dude tried to overthrow the government, and I just can't forgive or overlook that. While I still recognize that the democrats are an organization hostile to progressives, and that biden and the dems are engaging in rather anti competitive practices in suppressing a real primary from happening, I feel like it's more prudent at this time to worry about the dude who tries to overthrow elections outright. So eventually the dems did find a sin so grave even I have to vote blue no matter who.
In addition, Biden has...compromised with Bernie folks and has tried to implement many progressive policies. And I kinda have to respect him and reward him for that, even if it's not everything I want.
Not to mention the alternatives to Biden are kinda...lacking. Part of this is because I've shifted harder to my UBI oriented human centered capitalism since 2020 and am no longer as impressed with Bernie type candidates offering wish lists (when my #1 wish list item isn't even on it), but part of it is because these candidates are just...weak. Cornel West is TOO far left for me and keeps changing parties every week it seems. Marianne Williamson is kinda kooky with the new age stuff. And Cenk Uygur isn't even eligible to run really. As much as I'd like a real credible threat to Biden from the left, I'm just not seeing it. Bernie was a very unique politician and in the post Bernie era, the left is struggling to find similarly skilled candidates as he was.
And then you gotta consider the polls which seem to indicate biden is the best shot that the left has and that while the left has major image problems that do stem from its milquetoast centrist approach to politics, the public doesn't seem to be very interested in running someone else on the dem ticket and voting for them.
So it really does seem like this is destined to be a trump vs biden rematch, with trump being an open threat to democracy, and us needing to simply stay the course with biden for now and wait until 2028 to actually push for something better.
Still, in 2016, I made the best decision I could with the facts I had (minus the whole jill stein sucking thing) and the dems' strategy failed to win the election. That's their fault, not mine. They knew what they were doing and they need to own up to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment