So, Hasan covered it, it's official, Platner dropped out. He seemed kinda angry. He expressed his innocence, he blamed the democratic establishment for trying to shiv him, and honestly, a lot of leftists and progressives arent buying it. They think he's a chud, they think that he's guilty, and yeah. I mean, Platner is divisive among progressives. Like, he's super economically progressive, but has a rough history with women, and has said said things in the past that dont go well in progressive circles. The more "white male bernie bro" types tend to like him, but the more hyper feminist types hate him. I'm more on the "bernie bro" side of that spectrum, given my dislike for idpol, my rejection of the whole "believe all women" thing, etc.
With that said, i do tend to believe the woman who came forward here, simply because they provided at least some evidence of having said things about platner implying what happened BEFORE he ran for office. And that's important. Like, Im not hardcore on "believe all women". I get the whole idea behind it, because sexual assault happens A LOT, and it is hard for women to always have evidence. And a lot of women with legit accusations arent believed. However, i do think simply "believing all women" dogmatically and reflexively goes too far. Remember what happened to Till Lindemann? Yeah. I do. And I think when a person is famous, that the standard needs to be different. Any whack case can come forward and accuse anyone they want of anything they want. And they can create a culture war crapshow where all the feminists will be like BELIEVE ALL WOMEN and anyone who offers any defense of the man involved is a chud and should be expelled from the community. I also think, when someone is running for office, the standard should be higher too. Again, you can just make up crap to tank someone's approval, split their voter base, and force them to drop out.
And another thing, just because the accusations are credible doesn't mean that there isn't a conspiracy to kick someone out of the race with an accusation. Campaigns do opposition research. They dig into peoples' history and release stuff in order to tank their run for office. That's the point, to shift public opinion so that they win elections. There is ALWAYS going to be a manipulative angle to this stuff in politics. The idea that Graham Platner is a suspected rapist, and the idea that the democrats are cynically weaponizing this to force him to drop out, can both be true at the same time. This isn't a binary. Yes, I believe the accusations. but yes, I believe the democratic party is weaponizing these accusations at an opportune time to force him out of the race in order to kick a berniecrat who won his primary off of the ballot so they can replace them with someone else.
Which brings us to the actual process, as stated in Hasan's video, this is gonna be decided by 600 people within the democratic party. They're not having a new primary, they're not gonna coronate a replacement of similar ideology, they're gonna have some sort of convention of insider officials decide who gets it. While we can wait and see who that candidate is, I want everyone to know this, if this ISNT a progressive, this was a functional coup. Yes, the democrats literally did shiv platner, and even more so, they shived all berniecrats and progressives, stealing a nomination from us, and replacing OUR candidate with some neoliberal hack who basically reflects the democratic party's ideology. And keep in mind, the democrats are overtly hostile to progressives. They're basically declaring war on the democratic socialist faction.
Again, it doesnt matter if the accusations are true. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Platner may be a rapist. But the democratic party also has a vested interest in removing him and replacing him with a more ideologically palatable candidate. Both things can be true at the same time. We shouldnt be tribalistic where we either deny the accusations, nor should we not recognize the democrats and their vested interest in shiving Platner. Both are true. The accusations are true, but these accusations are coming forward now because the democratic party wants him out.
And on THAT question, we got two further realities. Functionalist theory: the democrats released this stuff before the deadline so the republicans couldnt use it to tank Graham Platner themselves, thus costing the dems the seat. By replacing platner, they're saving the democrats' chances at winning the seat. Conflict explanation, the democrats also dont like platner because he's a democratic socialist, and want to remove him to potentially replace him with a more ideologically moderate candidate. Again, these two things dont have to be mutually exclusive. Both can be true at the same time. They have both legitimate and illegitimate interests in tanking platner. You can frame it as them saving the party, or them screwing the left. hell, maybe it's a bit of both.
And that's where I'll leave this. This is a very complex situation. Multiple realities are true, we shouldnt be tribalistic and understand that yeah, this really is multifaceted. The accusations are legitimate, but the democrats can be doing this to screw a progressive candidate and replace him with a moderate. Both can be true at the same time. These two things arent contradictory. With that said, rather than engaging in all this toxic nonsense, where about 80% the democrats are virtue signalling and insisting on their moral rightness by always being against the guy, or alternatively of being willing to drop him at the drop of a hat while dunking on anyone who refuses to, and the other 20% denying the accusations because they wanna protect their guy, I really do suggest a middle ground.
This is why my stance was "okay, replace him, but replace him with an ideologically similar candidate". CHoosing someone else in a smoke filled backroom who does not fit those qualifications is crappy and it really is the democrats taking advantage of the situation to push their agenda.
With that said, we wait. We wait and see where the democrats go from here. Again, if they put forward a similar candidate like Troy jackson, then okay, cool. If they give us fricking Janet Mills, then you know they screwed us. Given the threat of donald trump and the fascist GOP this election season, I suggest we grit our teeth and take it, but at some point, we are probably gonna have to have the progressive left go to war with the democratic party (peacefully). Because if were gonna win primaries and theyre gonna shiv us and force their crap on us and tell us to vote blue no matter who, well, eventually, we're gonna have to answer that by NOT doing that.
Of course, I won't suggest we do that until Trump is out of office and the fascist threat is behind us.
No comments:
Post a Comment