So, I've been dunking on the left and how those in congress are far more moderate than the modern online left, and I went back into my old posts and found one on purity testing like a champ. And when I think about it, I think this one post actually outlines what separates me from the online left at the moment. It's not that I don't purity test or have standards, I'm just a lot more reasonable about them. As such, I want to revisit this article and outline exactly how I put these principles into practice and how the rest of the left doesn't.
1) Pick your battles
This seems obvious, but you're never going to agree with candidates on every issue. On isidewith, my best candidates I agree with 85-90% of the time. Meaning I will disagree with them on 10-15% of issues. Quite frankly, it's important to figure out your priorities list them out, and then see how well people stack up.Figure out what your top 5-10 issues are, and stick with them.
Yeah. This is a big one. This election cycle on my metric 2 purity test, I only focus on 5 issues. I do tend to have a more general metric (metric 1) that looks at the candidates as a whole where I can be frank about the totality of their platforms, and I tend to end up just rating them based on their stated policy positions and attempts to try to implement such positions.
My original 2016 purity test was 3 issues. UBI, medicare for all, and free college/student debt forgiveness. I have since added climate change and housing, and could arguably expand to a 6th, which would be reducing the work week, but given no candidate has seriously introduced the idea, I have held back on that. These purity tests were primarily established in something close to their current form in 2020, and in 2024 I'm using modded versions of such a platform. While more general metrics do weigh more heavily or lightly on certain issues, any specific policy disagreement outside of my big ones is not gonna be weighed very heavily. Foreign policy might be an outsized influence given the equal weight given with other classes of issues, but still, Im also looking at general foreign policy, so yeah.
But yeah. No one is perfect. I think on my general metric Biden got like a 60, Williamson like a 70, Phillips got somewhere in between, and in 2020 yang had like a 70 and Bernie like an 86 or something. No one is perfect in my book, I'm just choosing the ones I'm most closely aligned with based on the metrics and weighting I give the different issues. Even I might have slight imperfections by my own standards if I run for office given Im not sure M4A can be fully accomplished along side UBI. Still, it's what my ideal platform strives toward. Im measuring against an ideal. I just go with the one who is closest.
2) Set metrics with realistically achieveable goals
Once you got the list of hills you are willing to die on, set metrics figuring out what you want the candidates to do about them. That's actually a huge reason I've been focusing so much on policy. When I look at candidates, I'm literally comparing their policies to my own policies.
Figure out how you weight your priorities, and set standards for the candidates to meet. If you want a basic income, point out what kind of basic income you want, and then set goals comparing candidates' plans to yours. Same with healthcare, education, etc. (using my priorities as an example).
I kinda already went into this, but yes, I make measurable goals. I admit that my weighting and how many points I can give people can be somewhat subjective in practice, but I at least try to be objective if the metric spits something out at me that I disagree with, it means I didn't weigh the issues properly. But yeah, I also try to be fair. Like Biden is 60% of what I want roughly in terms of overall issues weighted by my preferences. Williamson is 70%, Yang was 70%, and Bernie was around 85%, only failing on UBI. On more specific economic metrics Biden is like a 30, Phillips got like a 47, Williamson got a 60, and if I weighed Yang and Bernie, Bernie would also get a 60 (given 40% went to UBI, as my top issue), and yang would get in the ballpark of 60-65ish.
Note how no one is perfect. I generally go with the candidate who scores the highest, or close to the highest (if there are other conditions I want to emphasize). And note how I have probably written blog articles outlining in terms of policy my own ideas for how I would do things. I weigh candidates vs that. I dont get everything I want, I just focus on what I care about, and I just go with who is closest.
3) Measure the candidates accordingly
Now that you have your standards on your top issues weighted to your liking, it's time to compare the candidates. How do they stack up?
Let's be honest, unless you're a hardcore Bernie Bro measuring Sanders himself, odds are you won't find anyone who matches you 100%. I mean, I'm lucky to find people I agree with 80% of the time.
On the updated versions of my two metrics, Bernie Sanders gets like an 86 on metric 1 and 70 on metric 2. This is out of 100 (see article in which I rambled about my metrics). And that's the best candidate. Yang was at 74 on 1 and 65 on 2.
It's good to measure all candidates in accordance with your adherence to your standards, and rank them accordingly. Maybe make a tiered list like I did and adjust it accordingly as they change their stances on issues. Make sure you don't overreact to minor changes too much though. I made that mistake at times in 2020 and it was totally unnecessary.
Yep, in 2020, I literally had a tier list given how many candidates we had. Nowadays, I dont go that far given there's only 3 candidates worth measuring on the dem side, and 3 independents, and all in all, on my general metric they all perform kind of samey. Like is the difference between 60 and 70 worth a protest vote? Not really. 80 vs 40 was, but not 70 vs 60. And on metric 2 there is a clear tiered aspect of it, with Biden near the bottom on my core purity tests, but none of the candidates really get very close to ideal. Biden is like a 30 and the best candidates are 60s.
All in all given the threat of trump and the like it seems like a bunch of petty stuff to bicker about right now. Biden is okay, not amazing, but not terrible, sure, williamson and phillips are better but how much in practice? Not a ton. And then you got the third party candidates and my whole "doesnt act as a spoiler" metric just evening things to the point that Biden is roughly equal with those progressive types. The fact is, until a candidate both embraces UBI AND doesn't go full centrist on other issues, no one is really going to impress me a ton.
4) Understand you won't get everything you want
Again, unless you're already biased and define your entire political perspective in accordance with a single candidate (which is bad, btw), you're never going to get a 100% match. Assuming this is a list of your truly top priorities, you may only find agreement with someone like 70-80% of the time at most. I know that's how I felt about Bernie, Yang, Hawkins, etc. Bernie didn't support UBI. Yang didn't support M4A. Hawkins was too much of a green new dealer and lacked cohesion to his platform. You're going to disagree with people. That's life. But if you can get 80% of what you want, that's an accomplishment. That's not to say you should settle for 80% if you can get 95% or something. But you should understand you will disagree with candidates on something and be willing to settle for who is relatively the best, even if not perfect.
Yep. And this election cycle in particular is too egregious where again no one is getting particularly close to what I want, and Biden is has actually improved his standing significantly from his 2020 baseline.
5) Be real about limitations
While you won't get everything you want, it doesn't mean you can't complain about it. Complain away, but be reasonable. I write long posts explaining why I don't like Bernie sometimes, or why I don't like Yang. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize candidates' weaknesses. We don't want to fall into a hive mind like the Bernie Bros or members of the Yang gang after all. Candidates aren't perfect, it's fine to disagree with them. At the time don't be hyperbolic.
I feel like I do this reasonably well. Im very nitpicky on here but at the end of the day i will cast my vote for someone either way.
I just dislike this whole THIS PERSON AGREES WITH ME 95% OF THE TIME BUT HES SATAN BECAUSE OF THIS ONE STANCE ON THIS ONE WEDGE ISSUE or something. Like come on, man...
6) At the same time don't accept garbage
Okay, real talk, wanna know why I hate centrist democrats so much? Because often they fail to even meet 50% of my standards. Often 30-40% is the going rate. And they act like they're doing you a favor for caving on a few relatively minor priorities or offering ridiculously flawed and watered down policies. Look, if you disagree with a candidate so much you struggle to find ideological common ground with them (defined by less than 50-60% agreement), and you find most of their solutions to be garbage, that's okay. It's okay to purity test crap candidates who aren't even trying. If you're being patronized, you don't have to take that crap. It's perfectly fine to accept that 3rd party candidate offering 70-80% if the democrats only offer 30-40%. If anything that's what purity testing is for, to inspire people like that to do better.
Yeah my big issue in 2016 and 2020 is it felt like the dems were intentionally curbing expectations by setting the bar low in the first place. They were being fairly centrist. But I did notice, as I went into the nitty gritty of policies Biden did ultimately embrace at least a bit of bernie's agenda and made a good faith effort in actually attempting to get it done. He has largely failed due to forced outside of his control, but the reason I've softened toward Biden is I do grade on effort. The rest of the left doesnt. Which is why they screech at AOC and Bernie and John Fetterman for not being 100% morally pure.
7) Don't sweat the small stuff
Really, pick your battles. Take Yang. If he was gonna give me UBI, an idea that, by itself, influences up to 30% of my voting habits, is it really worth dropping support of him because he has a crap stance on Israel, which might influence my voting habits by less than 1%? Candidates are people, they're not perfect. You won't agree with them on every issue. This is why I'm not sweating Yang on the Israel thing. Yes, his views are crap, but is it REALLY going to influence how I view him come election time? No, not really. Really, ask yourself if this ACTUALLY matters. Don't get bogged down in minutae.
Oh hey, notice how I mentioned israel in particular. Because this isnt the first time the issue came up. The left ripped Yang hard for it too, and was particularly unfair to him about it.
I dont get why the left gets so rabid over that issue in particular. As you can tell, I dont care much. It's like 1% of how I view things overall, or less. Maybe more like 2-5% on my general metric 1 given I weigh it by 10 points and am currently mostly grading on ukraine and israel, but still, its 2-5 points AT MOST. And I can disagree with it, but unless i got two candidates that are equal and one supports israel and the other doesnt, it's not gonna be a deal breaker. If anything, the only time it is is when being anti israel often implies other things about their worldview which are bad for foreign policy. Which is why I kinda rip leftist candidates like Jill Stein, Cornel West, and to a lesser extent Marianne Williamson over it. Because their weakness on the issue sometimes implies a perspective or personal weakness that would make me question their judgment in particular. As such, any criticism I have on THAT issue is only related to their overall judgment as commander in chief, not about the moral stance on that issue in itself.
8) At the same time, hold them accountable for the big stuff
Back to Yang. M4A influences up to 25% of my voting habits. The dude supported M4A, then backed down to a public option, and then ran on band aid fixes. This is my #2 issue. Do better, dude. Like, this actually did cause me to drop Yang like a hot potato.
It's perfectly fine, if a candidate betrays you on a major priority, that you hold them accountable for it, drop them, and support someone else. I mean, if someone scores better on your metric than the guy you're supporting, change your support.
And I do. And this is why no one really enthuses me. UBI IS a big issue for me. A failure to embrace it has skewed my metrics so hard that no one even comes close to hitting my ideal, even if they do everything else right (which williamson does on economic policy, aka, metric 2). It's kind of why I look at everyone and am like "none of you really excite me". ANd while dean phillips did kind of give a nod to the idea, it's not like he openly has a plan to implement it, and he's pretty weak on other issues i care about compared to say, williamson.
Again, I want to emphasize, no one really enthuses me A LOT this cycle. Williamson is the best I'd say, but that's not saying a ton. And Biden clearly misses the mark. While he has made positive strides I have to acknowledge, he's not super close to me either. Im just slightly less lukewarm to him than I've always been. He's like a 6/10 rather than a 4/10. Rather than being slightly negative im slightly positive, but im still largely "meh" on the guy.
9) Stick to your standards
If you believe in your standards, stick by them. Don't move the goalposts without good reason. I mean this both in the sense that you shouldnt compromise your standards to please others, but also in the sense that you shouldn't start nitpicking candidates over minutae because they aren't perfect in every way.
For example, complaining over $1400 checks instead of $2000 was stupid. Democrats campaigned on bumping the $600 checks to $2000. They sent a $1400 check on top of the $600 one. I feel like democrats were pretty honest about what they meant, but then progressives are like BUT IT WASN'T $2000! It just felt dishonest in a moving the goalpost kind of way.
If you get what you want, then praise them for it. I feel like the left does this thing where candidates deliver and then the left will act like its not good enough and go further left. No, set up standards, and when they're met, be satisfied. At least for now. There is always next election. I swear we could get UBI and M4A in full uncompromised form and the left would complain it's not true communism or something, or alternatively, the UBI sucks because it's $1,000 a month and not $3,000 a month.
I STILL see people occasionally giving Biden crap about the $2000 checks thing. And of course, it really does seem like the left can never be satisfied AT ALL. Like, Biden went for a ceasefire in israel. he pushed for it. His base SCREAMED about it, and then he did it. Did anyone give him credit? No. They still call him "genocide joe". Meanwhile I have to given Biden credit for accomplishing that. I didnt expect him to and if I were in office i wouldnt have even tried. So Biden in some way showed political mastery I do not have, and did a very good job there. But of course, no one can be satisfied there. And that's bad.
You realize if you dont give Biden credit where credit is due, he's just gonna ignore you next time, right? Because he would understand that the left is fickle and driven by outrage. This is why ive softened my own stance toward Biden. Biden is NOT perfect. I know he isn't. And I don't expect him to be. But, I have to admit he has exceeded my expectations so I try to give him credit. Doesnt mean I wont vote for someone in a primary against him like Williamson or Phillips, but it does mean that I give him credit and will likely support him in the general.
I'm not gonna attack him for not doing more, unless he fell short of my standards in the first place. We can always implement new standards the next election cycle. But as far as the election cycle in question, give him credit for doing what he promised to do.
10) Understand you won't get everything you want (again)
So say your candidate gets in, they ran on your ideal platform, and they didn't deliver. Ask for real, whose fault is that? Is it theirs? Where is the blockage? Often times people are hamstrung by the system. AOC isn't an all powerful goddess just because she's progressive as fudge. She has to work within a system dominated by craplibs. You ain't gonna get medicare for all simply by electing like 6 people to congress who want it.
If you have a reason to rip people for being lazy and not trying, go for it. But I don't see how force the vote would accomplish anything.
Same thing, if say, we had president Andrew Yang and Manchin said "lol no UBI'. That would be Manchin's fault, not Yang's. Back people who support your policies. Blame the people who deserve it most. Understand we live in a democracy with separation of powers. Even if you get your ideal candidate they can't do crap if the other 534 people in the system don't want to. Just goes with the territory.
And this is another thing. Biden has tried to accomplish:
1) $15 minimum wage
2) paid family leave
3) universal preK/daycare
4) up to $20000 in student debt forgiveness
5) a very significant climate change bill that while on a scale smaller than Bernie's green new deal, was based and given MY standards, I actually like it better.
6) Child tax credit, aka, UBI for kids
But...he didnt actually ACCOMPLISH any of that? The $15 minimum wage was shot down by the parliamentarian and people like Kyrsten Sinema. Joe Manchin sank a good chunk of the other stuff. The courts shut down his student debt forgiveness plan. I mean, the dude tried. And he failed. At least give him credit for trying, just like you would (hopefully) give AOC credit for force the vote. Heck, I could see if AOC did that the left would still be screaming that it didnt pass.
Again, if you cant reasonably look at the situation, look at where the roadblocks are, and name and shame, and you just blame the people who try, then....why should they try again in the future? You'll just attack them for doing so, and then they wont do anything. Id rather a candidate try and fail via political theater than to never try at all. Again, do people seriously not understand this?
Again, this, right here, is why ive softened on Biden so much. It's not like he's the end all be all of what i want, not even close. Were talking 60% agreement overall as per metric 1, and 30% on my main economic platform as per metric 2. That's all biden is for me. A fairly mediocre, milquetoast politician who sometimes does somewhat based things. He's not the end all be all of my politics. He's not even close. BUT, I have to give him credit for trying. And yet, his own side hates him. And I kinda get that, I kinda feel malaise too, but again, whose fault is that? Again, not biden's. It was the GOP in congress, the GOP controlled court system, and the handful of holdouts in congress like joe manchin and kyrsten sinema. So blame them for Biden not being more based.
Again, I write this because I have to be blunt. The modern left is exiting this realm that we called reality, and living in their own little world, similar to the far right. And their vision is sometimes just as scary as the far right. The SJW crap is obnoxious and im totally turned off. The calls for literal socialism are wtf, the anti america/west stance on foreign policy is cringe, and i never signed up for that.
I have standards, they're similar to the standards i always had. If anything ive mostly gotten more progressive over time. I did moderate on a couple things, but mostly because I looked at the feasibility of the ideas in the form I had them and I kinda realized i needed to scale a couple things back. But honestly, ive largely been for the same crap give or take since 2016. It's the world that's changed, it's the left that's changed.
And honestly, I HATE it. My gosh, we're not gonna get ANYTHING EVER if this is how the far left is gonna act. Because their standards are unrealistic and they just attack people in a mob like fashion anyway. I try to be reasonable and realistic here. I have my standards, I lay them out, I literally make metrics to measure them, and then I weigh people against them. And I base my support on that.
And currently, my stance is this:
Biden- More based than i thought he would be, still horribly mediocre, but he has attempted to do enough to earn himself a general election vote. Especially given donald trump is a literal psychopath who can't be allowed to hold office again.
Williamson- My preferred candidate, embraces a bernie like platform but is a bit more cringe than bernie by some metrics. Still better then the far leftists though.
Phillips- I warmed to him, he seems to understand the issues similarly to me but he's far too moderate on the solutions. Still, I likely give him a step up from Biden.
West/Stein- I mean, the same old leftism they pushed that I've moved away from, a bit too extreme at times, but otherwise kinda based, not worth a protest vote though.
RFK- not as bad as i originally thought, would love to see people defect from the GOP over to him but otherwise he's meh.
Trump- Okay, like seriously, this guy is reminding me of like hitler, and i actually mean that in a serious way. I'm literally going full godwins law in an unironic way and I almost never actually do that. DO NOT elect this man again.
Other GOP- they suck, but at least they're not trump.
With that said, I think I set up a reasonable guide for purity testing. I feel like this is necessary given how insane the left is acting these days. It's fine to be an ideologue, it's fine to have that pet cause you will fight for to the bitter end. But at the same time be reasonable, set standards, pick your battles, and tolerate imperfection. Nothing I'm saying here should be construed as support for craplibs btw. Those guys circlejerk to the IDEA of compromise and their talk is often in bad faith. If someone isn't even 50% of what you want, don't even freaking bother. But assuming you got a decent candidate who will get you 70% of what you want, you should support them. The reality is people are people, people are imperfect, and you're gonna have to compromise somewhere. It just depends on how much and under what circumstances.
And yeah, this is precisely where I tend to differ from the modern online left. I dont think people should necessarily vote blue no matter who (although maybe vs trump) or settle for less. But the kinds of purity testing the left does is NOT reasonable, and it is NOT constructive. It is actually harmful to our cause over the long term. I admit my standards also arent the same as most leftists. While Im significantly to the left of the pre 2016 left, I'm also disgustingly moderate compared to the 2024 left which can only be described as "the strawman rush limbaugh warned conservative me about all along." Like seriously when I left conservatism i thought it was a joke and that no one actually acted like this, but here I am with the left having brainrot and literally calling for socialism, and being anti american, and being full on social justice nutcases. ANd it's INSANE. It's insane.
The GOP acting like this drove me so hard out of the GOP I will likely never go back. But the far left is alienating me too and im finding myself centering on being a fairly economically progressive liberal, but otherwise being fine with centrist liberalism.
Like really, right now, Im starting to align more with the establishment left over the anti establishment left. Even if i fundamentally disagree with them on economics. But because I also disagree with the left, I'm just in this weird middle ground where im politically homeless, everyone hates me, and I dont like them either.
And yeah. It's frustrating. Can we go back to some level of sanity now? Seriously post 2016 politics is peak brainrot right now. While changes need to be made relative to the pre 2016 status quo even on economics, between the right, the establishment left, and the far left, I just hate everyone. Yet I still vote for the candidates in closest to. And yeah, what else can I do? Other than stick to my standards and keep pushing in the direction I want things to go in? Politics in the 2024 election cycle suck.
No comments:
Post a Comment