144
‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
144 points (79.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7211 readers
624 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's more of a difference in practical values. At what point does the "lesser evil" itself become intolerable evil? Some people insist that you should vote for Hitler over 101% Hitler, that there is no intolerable level as long as there is a miniscule difference. Others have firm red lines in the sand, like genocide, where they advocate for abandoning them and pushing as hard as you can, even advocating for moves outside the electoral system like revolution.
So to put this in more practical terms, one would neither vote for Hitler or 101% Hitler, and instead vote for The Other Person who Isn't Much Hitler At All, or abstain or something, and protest and take action in other ways?
The "correct" answer is to vote for "Not Hitler" and join a revolutionary org, such as FRSO or PSL in the US.
Which candidate who opposes both Russia and Israel's genocide has a path to the presidency? Legitimately, fully feasible path in 3 weeks to get this candidate to have 270 electoral votes?
The point isn't to win the presidency, but to show the votes the Dems threw away by being genocidal, and again, joining revolutionary orgs.
So throw the country to the fascists polluting our homes, destroying our education system, rallying up people who enjoy committing hate crimes to other Americans. It's the Democrats fault we will repeat the events of 2016.
Got it.
Fascism is Capitalism in decay, electing democrats doesn't push fascism back.
Electing Republicans forces PoC and queer politicians to step down from death threats and fear of their livelihood. It removes safeguards for students and the disabled, for protestors and for communities who are dependent on support from their government.
When socialists run as Democrats, they get elected and accomplish small steps. Small steps are about the only actions we have.
What "Socialists" are running as Democrats? I'm aware of none.
Secondly, revolution is necessary and is absolutely an action we can take.
To quote a friend,
"Jabari Brisport. He ran as a Green Party candidate in 2017 with the backing of New York City Democratic Socialists of America. He lost 70-30 when he did that (that was a "respectable performance" for a Green Party candidate) and the Greens reaped exactly nothing from him running besides a "moral victory" that they haven't improved on or built off of since.
When Jabari again as a Democrat in 2020, he actually won. He's a big reason we got the Build Public Renewables Act passed--and a reason why bills such as the Clean Futures Act and the All-Electric Building Act get introduced and debated at all (because he helps introduce them and fight for them on behalf of the chapter). Thanks to him, there are now material, working class victories that socialists can point to for why people should elect us over moderate Democrats who don't care about any of this. If he just kept running as a Green, we probably wouldn't have been able to do any of that. running as a Green was a quixotic strategy that accomplished nothing for the working class, and he'd be the first to admit that."
It's wild, but running as a democratic candidate makes it so that we are able to accomplish more. So to throw that away to "show the Dems what they deserve" is completely contradictory to what we need to be doing to actually accomplish meaningful changes in our government.
Seems that he's just a Social Democrat, not a Socialist.
Alright then.