So, Kyle Kulinski discussed blue no matter who on his program today, how he was skeptical, but came to accept its wisdom in the trump era, but now is witnessing all the blue no matter who types refuse to actually support...progressives when they win primaries. So, I wanna have an honest discussion about the practice and how I view it, both from a more abstract poli sci standpoint, but also in the current reality. Because I've shifted on this too, but the shift is more due to circumstances, and not principle. And I wanna really give people the real scoop on this idea.
Blue no matter who was always a scam
I could tell from the second I first saw this phrase that it was just some cheap flimsy excuse to bully progressives who clearly didnt like Clinton into voting for her. I mean, the democrats in 2016 would always go like...."oh bernie is never gonna win, but you better support whomever the nominee is" along side "it's always gonna be hillary." It's like, the fix was in, we gotta vote for clinton, or we get whatever republican wins. Back in early 2015, it wasnt trump. It was just...whatever republican wins, we MUST support the democrat because theyre some grand existential threat.
This never sat right with me. it's exactly the kind of phrase some bad faith actor would come up with to justify voting for a turd. And yet, this virtue of "voting blue no matter who" became so commonplace in the democratic party that you were treated as a pariah by self righteous and antagonistic centrist libs who insisted we MUST vote for their crappy candidate. It was never a good faith argument, it was always parroted by centrists, and it was always positioned along side arguments of electability, assuming people wouldnt vote for a progressive candidate. But it's apparently okay to force us to vote for a centrist one? We cant leverage power in the same way? yeah, it's bullcrap.
From a political science perspective
While we've had a two party system since the 1796 election when Washington refused to seek reelection, establishing the two term precedent for presidents in American politics, it's never been an intended design choice. If anything, James Madison in federalist #10 kind of saw the american system as designed to prevent factions from arising, and to control them when they do arise. The founders never wanted there to be parties, and the idea of there being two parties no one actually likes but people had to vote between was just sadly one of the worst outcomes for the American system of government.
And early on, the two parties didnt even stay the same two parties. We had the federalists and antifederalists disappear and the republican-democrats and whigs arise in their place. Eventually the republican-democrats just became democrats and the republicans replaced the whigs. The two party system existed in party alignments, which were generational, and eventually broke down. We had periods like the 1824 and 1856 elections where we had four way elections as the coalitions broke down. And while things have settled among the republicans and democrats from 1860 onward, what drove those parties were coalitions of voters, with periods of relative stability and instability. Ultimately, voter patterns drove those coalitions, and once in a generation, those coalitions break down and reform. We've had this happen six times, and arguably we're undergoing a transition to a seventh party system, if this has not already happened yet.
What happens during these periods of realignment is voters end up dealigning from the parties in question, and then realigning along different lines. Party loyalty declines as the existing alignment no longer serves voter interests, and then rises again as the electorate aligns itself around a new set of issues. But ultimately, it's the voters that decide. If a party is no longer serving their interests, the voters have every right to walk away and even vote for a third party. We like to act like voting third party is a waste and you cant win, but if enough people get fed up with the existing coalition, and the coalitions break down, the republicans and democrats gotta scramble to get those voters back.
Often times, third party campaigns can be quite influential when the two parties arent doing enough. Abolitionist parties arose when neither main party would address slavery properly. We had socialist parties during the gilded age and fourth party system when capitalism's excesses were at their worst point. George Wallace's 1968 campaign represented a dealignment as white southerners upset over segregation left the democratic party, only to be picked up by Nixon and Reagan. In 2024 just this past election, RFK's third party candidacy was a threat to trump winning, and trump brought him in and made him secretary of health in order to satisfy him and bring his fan base into trump's coalition. Even if RFK Jr is a batcrap insane health secretary, bringing a competitor into one's administration and giving him a powerful position is smart politics and arguably helped tipped the scales in Trump's favor. had he not done that, Harris very well might've won, given how close the margins were.
So dont let anyone tell you the threat of voting third party is empty. Sure, it might seem like a wasted vote, but if neither party is serving your interest, and the party youre closer to is taking you for granted and quite literally bullying you into remaining in their coalition, you generally have every right to leave. And ultimately, the third party people, at least on the left, end up being right eventually. It might take a few decades or even half a century for the rest of the country to catch up, but eventually, the country will be forced to act on those issues to maintain itself. And the party that finally gives them attention, like Lincoln's republicans, or FDR's democrats, end up being very electorally successful.
Where I evolved with Kyle
So, I wanna make it clear, the people screaming blue no matter who in 2016 weren't wise beyond their years when they were making threats in 2016 about how bad republicans would be. They just got lucky. Ultimately, they had no idea who would be the nominee. They actually helped elevate trump, thinking it would weaken the republicans by driving more people toward hillary (because that's how pathetic her campaign was), and the whole campaign was just an attempt to scare people into voting for the chosen one.
The problem was...it backfired. Trump wasnt supposed to win in 2016. He was not favored for most of the campaign cycle. The 2016 election was always the democrats' to win and the republicans' to lose, and it really took some work on the part of democrats to F things up so bad that Trump actually won.
Even if the republicans won, while the republicans would be bad regardless, we didn't know HOW bad, or how stubborn the democrats would be in refusing to learn from a defeat. The democrats learned nothing, tried the same thing in 2020 with Biden, and just happened to win due to the republicans' having election fatigue. Keep in mind the party in power tends to do worse in reelection most of the time, only performing around their first performance at best, and actively underperforming it in many situations. That's why Biden won in 2020. People wanted trump out. It wasnt an endorsement for Biden. Which is why the democrats entered 2024 in such a sorry state.
But yeah. A lot of us...expected normal republican screwery from Trump. And in his first term, we got normal screwery. The democrats clearly had "trump derangement syndrome", going on about how OMG LOOK AT HOW BAD HE IS, but again, it was all just normal bad republican things. And that's kind of what i expected. Trump was an idiot but he was surrounded by republican experts who could help guide him and keep his worst impulses under wraps.
The real problem happened after he lost 2020. He went NUTS, did the whole "it was rigged" thing, had his people storm the capitol, and i didnt know wtf to think at first, but after seeing the evidence put together during the biden administration. Yeah, that was a failed coup. He went for it. And Trump went in a DANGEROUSLY authoritarian direction after that.
And in 2024, he came back with a new agenda, new people (yes people), and this whole plan to take over the government and establish a maximalist interpretation of executive power. Basically, he wanted to be a dictator this time. And by this point, the democrats just cried wolf so many times over this guy no one listened.
But...even I saw the threat. And this is how I see blue no matter who. Look, if we're dealing with normal republicans doing normal republican things, have at it. No one is owed your vote. You dont have to vote for democrats blah blah blah. BUT...when the actual fate of the country is at stake, and the stakes get this high and the consequences of failure this severe....we kinds HAVE to vote for the democrats to keep the GOP out of power. It isn't about blue no matter who being good. It's the fact that if we wanna affect change in the long term, we need the continuation of our democracy to happen, and that can no longer be treated as a given. Not in this environment, with this administration.
Did the democrats predict this in 2016? Eh...they did but not for the right reasons. you see, they were fear mongering. They were envisioning the absolute worst case scenario that should never happen to pressure you to vote for them. They didnt believe it. They just wanted you to. because they want a bunch of desperate people who will crawl over broken glass to vote for them even if they do nothing for you. They fundamentally believe they just have to be less bad than the GOP and you should just for joy at the opportunity to vote for them. They dont wanna be good, they dont wanna try. The fact that trump ended up this bad just happened to come true. They dont deserve credit for being right in this "see I told you so" way, as if it props up the validity of their theory of politics. They just got lucky.
I wanna make that clear. They just got lucky, they would've been acting the same way if this dude was just a normal republican doing normal republican things. He could've been george bush III and they'd still act exactly as hyperbolic.
The same is true of SCOTUS. They had no way of knowing so many SCOTUS justices would die or retire and trump would get to replace THREE people. And even if he did, we had no way of knowing the court would become this corrupt and this activist. SCOTUS is supposed to position themselves above politics and rule independently of the other branches. They're not supposed to just greenlight whatever insane theories trump wants. And to be fair, sometimes they DO mildly push back against trump, but at the same time, they're also a flagrantly partisan institution that does do a lot of judicially activist things. But again, we couldnt realistically predict it would be THIS bad. THe dems fear mongering over the worst case scenario doesnt make them right, it makes them lucky. I wanna make that doubly clear.
So what do we do now?
For 2026 and 2028, we vote blue no matter who. Remember the realignment I told you about? It's happening, the republicans are winning. The dems F-ed up big time, and at this point, we might be lucky just to keep our democracy. But if we ever make it out of this...at some point, we ARE gonna have to stand up to the dems again. We cant just allow them to keep power over us forever. But for now, yeah, just vote for these guys as if our democracy depends on it, because it does.
So what of their refusal to back platner?
Establishment dems are being really crappy in recent years. Like...they're at risk of losing power. because post 2024, people are tired of their crap. They're tired of the same do nothing lukewarm centrist politicians. But the fact that they're making such a big stink over zohran mamdani, graham platner, abdul el sayed, etc., shows their true colors. It was never about blue no matter who and party loyalty. if they dont get THEIR way, well, they might try to tank the coalition. And if they do that, well, that shows how crappy they are. it shows how little they believe in their own crap, and honestly, I hope we can have more honest talks about the centrist wing as time goes on. Because they were NEVER acting in good faith. it was always a cudgel, it was always a smokescreen.
As I see it, until the threat of trump and his immediate illiberal coalition passes, we do have to blue no matter who. but that doesnt mean we should be stupid and ignore the obvious. The democrats use that stuff in bad faith to pressure us to vote for centrists, with no expectations of reciprocity when the shoe is on the other foot. Normally, I'd take their behavior as a sign of "fine, let's have this fight", but for now, i am focused on winning 2026 and 2028. Still, in the future, I am fine with throwing these centrists out of the party. Hell. I hope they join the republicans. Let them get all the stuffy elitists, let us get a working class coalition. So far the dems have been angling for the opposite. This whole mess happened because they've been trying to on board the neocons and moderate wing of the republicans, while keeping the progressive base captive. But it's been failing as they're losing more working class voters than theyre getting moderate republicans. Honestly, i think it's best for the country if these guys F off to the republicans because that's where they belong. And it is better for the country if they get these people. It leads to a weaker, less ideologically cohesive, and moderate republican party, and a more progressive and populist democratic party.
Honestly. I dont even think losing these guys will do much for us in terms of making us lose elections, because they're what's been holding the country back. So if they wanna join the republicans, join their coalition, and water it down, making the fascist threat less threatening, make my fricking day. That's the outcome i wanted all along.
Conclusion
Idk its tricky right now. We do gotta focus on winning, but at the same time, we cant let these guys keep pushing us around. We are undergoing a realignment. It can go two ways. Either we're stuck dealing with a centrist democratic party that keeps progressive captive while the GOP continues to rush toward fascism, or....we get a working class democratic party and the elitists jump ship to the republicans, which will probably do us a favor if anything.
As far as im concerned, as long as the fascist threat is neutralized, i dont care what happens to the democrats. I have no loyalty to them. if anything I hate the ruling class that runs the party. I wish they'd F off to the republicans. We'd probably gain more voters than lose them if that happened honestly. But yeah. Continue to fight these guys from within in primaries, vote blue in the general, and if the centrists dont, well....shows how serious they were with this blue no matter who crap, doesn't it? Make my fricking day. I just want trump out, with my long term secondary goal of making the democrats a more working class party.
No comments:
Post a Comment