Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Norithics

Party Politics for Democrats

Okay. It seems to me that there could be some... hard-hitting education on this subject, that reaches past the high-minded thoughtcloud and gets down to brass tacks. I will elucidate this once, because it's extremely arduous to explain in its fullness.

Republicans win because Democrats cannot ever hold onto power. Democratic voters are much more critical of their leaders and come from a variety of cultures and experiences, so Democratic politicians have to walk a tightrope to satisfy them. I know that might not seem to be the case when you interact with the True Believers, but facts is facts. They're easier to disenfranchise.

To add to this, Republicans can at all times threaten their uneasy political power with politics that hearken to nostalgia and a miasmic sense of what 'used to be good' about America. They literally sit on a platform of "Change is bad," while in reality using that nostalgic sense of hardworking-American-ism to instate laissez-faire policies that roundly help only very large corporations. It's the perfect political marriage of absolute cronyism meets meaningless lip service. Having this pair of voting blocs is incredibly powerful for them, and means they basically never have to put Country first. Get investigated for corruption? Oh, that's okay, the good Senator believes in Jesus, he too will be saved.

Democrats, on the other hand, find that they indeed must make those same kinds of shady deals, but instead with law firms, labor unions, various apparatus of the state, and many, many other scattered groups all at once, in order to ever get or stay in power, because their groups are smaller, varied and require much more motivation to turn out to vote. And naturally because their followers are not faith-based, when they get investigated for corruption, or found to lie, they get hit twice as hard- by Republicans on the other side, and by their disillusioned followers who want them to be above the system that they must participate in to get to play at all. To add to this, they must also not anger the Conservative base too much lest they activate that incredibly easily manipulated bloc that will leap into action. This is to say nothing of racial components, which are there but I'll just leave out because it's more trouble than it's worth for the sake of this very mechanical explanation. Suffice it to say, they've got an easy button and we don't. That's why corruption exists- because the standard bloc Democrats depend on is so shaky that they end up having to go elsewhere to shore themselves up. This is how we got here.

Now. Could this be changed? Yes. But it would require everyone to participate in politics way, way, WAY more than they do. Voting once every four years, for President, is like fishing in half a boat. You have to vote for your local races. Senator. Governer. Mayor. City Council. You have to make some calls. You have to knock on doors. You have to engage with people outside of your bubble, and you have to vigilantly remember that politicians are not your parents, or your friends. They're tools that have availed themselves to you, to get the things you want. Treat them that way.
Viewed: 745 times
Added: 7 years, 5 months ago
 
kandlin
7 years, 5 months ago
Conservative thinking have turned 'liberal' and 'progressive' into some of the most toxic words to them. All you have to hear is someone say 'liberal media' and they've effectively discredited any and all information and criticism to the candidate in question. The entire party has effectively become a Yellow Dog Republican.
Norithics
7 years, 5 months ago
It's very useful too, because it can mean just about literally anything they need it to.
ShawnGuku
7 years, 5 months ago
I'd rather get rid of the party system altogether, so people would be more inclined to pick a candidate based on their values and policies. But I'm sure people would find something else to latch on to in order to avoid thinking. Either way, while you're not wrong, I can understand the want for people to just live their lives and not worry about politics all the time. It's stressful and infuriating and can show little to no reward for your effort.

I consider myself an independent, I'm critical of every candidate, and will only cast a vote for one that I feel deserves it, not a "lesser of two evils."
Norithics
7 years, 5 months ago
1. That's impossible. Better systems than ours still have parties, they just have more. People will always group up interests.

2. Being independent is fine as long as you pay attention. It doesn't have to be all the time; just every two years instead of four would be an enormous change.
Delquea
7 years, 5 months ago
Personally I have to agree at the same time, its difficult to show  high interest in another culture far different from mine (I'm from Eastern Asia basically). This also adds to the issue when interest in politics is extremely low.
Norithics
7 years, 5 months ago
Unfortunately, regardless of your interest levels, you still have to live in the same world. There's a reason it's called a civic duty and not a civic hobby. Still, even just understanding what's on the ballot every two years would be a great change for the better. You can do it via googling "My Ballot" and putting in your address afterwards. Knowledge is power and all that.
Delquea
7 years, 5 months ago
While thats true, there is the case in which we live in the same world. Just not the same countries which have different civic duties when it comes to politics. That and I aint register. Still gotta wait a couple more years.
tkongingi
7 years, 5 months ago
Or maybe we, collectively, as a species, never were supposed to get anywhere good to begin with. Maybe the psychopaths really are ahead of the curve, and the likes of Trump, Putin, Kim etc. are not usurpers of the people's will but a reflection of what we really deserve. Maybe the endgame of humanity is for all the decent people to finally die off and let the troglodytes club each other to death in an orgy of hate.
Norithics
7 years, 5 months ago
I think we just need a dragon to slay to convince people it's worth it.
Kalibran
7 years, 5 months ago
Trump's not a good enough dragon. The Nazis... now *there* was a dragon. Like many of us, I wish there were some magic thing I could say that would make things better, that would dispell the ill feelings and will. Alas, there is not.
Norithics
7 years, 5 months ago
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply he was, just that generally I don't think people get motivated unless they're convinced they're triumphing against something terrible.
doomcup
7 years, 5 months ago
Further, to add a corollary to that, I think people don't get motivated unless they feel they *can* win against something terrible, which is another facet behind the Trump win. A lot of people felt they couldn't win, so they stayed at home and didn't vote.
Kalibran
7 years, 5 months ago
Mike Pence is arguably scarier. He can be a dragon.
doomcup
7 years, 5 months ago
It's less that Trump felt unassailable and more it felt like neither candidate seemed worth voting for. Understandably, a lot of people stayed home or voted third party in protest.

In essence, a Clinton victory wouldn't have been "winning" for them.
Kalibran
7 years, 5 months ago
I voted for Johnson, and now the man on TV is saying I'm basically a Nazi. Would that I was as well dressed.
slashD89
7 years, 5 months ago
while i do know people like that, the word 'liberal' and 'progressive' have been hijacked by people who honestly don't care about liberal values nor having a progressive society.

lock444
7 years, 5 months ago
i had not thought about the parties in those aspects before. that's very insightful. what do you think of the idea that voting should be required by law? you think that would solve problems or create more?
Aramilian
7 years, 5 months ago
My only questions in this regards, and do note I am not a Trump supporter, is that if corruption is a required component for democrats, why did Bernie Sanders appear from left field, rise quickly to the top, and require corruption to be brought down, all of this within the party he was in. If corruption is truly needed, why would Democrats use it against themselves and then cover it up? It doesn't sound like a requirement to me, personally, it sounds like an easy way to wave off any losses that occur or to just remove the need to worry about the voting base.
Norithics
7 years, 5 months ago
I knew someone would ask this, and I'm glad you did. Allow me to explain.

Bernie Sanders doesn't make friends. He doesn't care about making grand coalitions, he puts Vision before Action, and he doesn't bend to others' will.

He can do this because he's a Senator from Vermont, a small state with a concentrated culture. He uniquely can afford to not deal with all the rest of the nonsense that others have to, because of his incredibly special circumstances. Kucinich was a lot like that too. There are lightning strikes that work like this, and hindsight being 20/20, he would have made a much better candidate. But he couldn't make it in the favors-and-deals climate of the only party who he could align with, because they don't get to do that. And just to be real for a minute? Sanders does still actually have to bow to the will of his voters; when pressed on guns, he waffles really hard, because his state loves them.

So yes. He was a much better choice for President, but the entire apparatus that he needed in order to become the nominee was one he had criticized, eschewed and written off time after time. It's not hard to see why the two didn't mesh.
MaximilianUltimata
7 years, 5 months ago
The guns issue was a small price to pay, in my opinion. We can't rely on finding the absolute perfect candidate. I said this after Hillary won the nomination. I didn't want her as the candidate. Bernie was my first option despite his stance on gun laws, but when the conditions of the game changed, I adapted.

Now we need to do that again. Once more, with feeling!
Norithics
7 years, 5 months ago
That's really the larger point, I think. That waiting for the perfect candidate is really just folly in the first place, because everyone has to play the game at least a little. What was the quote? "Republicans fall in line. Democrats fall in love." It's so much harder to inspire them.
Aramilian
7 years, 5 months ago
Yes, but the question I asked is why, if the corruption is only to be able to stand against the other party, did the democratic party use corruption against him. It isn't one where you can say that he wouldn't have made it, it's never been done. Trump is the same thing, a non-politician winning the presidency, so therefore nobody can say Sanders wouldn't have made it. As such, my question remains; If corruption is truly needed, why would Democrats use it against themselves and then cover it up?

P.S. Before any possible misunderstanding, I'm not saying Trump and Sanders are the same, but rather they are both people who were attempting something completely different from the norm, one with no superpack and trying to win via the people, and another being a businessman running the race rather than a politician.
Norithics
7 years, 5 months ago
It was a classic Democratic story: they completely miscalculated. Having to serve so many masters means they never have as clear of an outlook, so they used the same tools that keep them in power, to push out someone they saw as being less electable. They didn't see the forest for the trees.
Aramilian
7 years, 5 months ago
And for that I will completely agree with you. The reason Trump won wasn't because he was the best candidate, or even the most loved, it was because nobody took him seriously and the Democratic party, the party of the people, ended up shooting itself in the foot after gazing so long into the abyss.
Jewelwriter
7 years, 5 months ago
It's hard to be able to take what has happened when you have done all you can and it still goes south.
Norithics
7 years, 5 months ago
I understand. I've lived in red states all my life. It's beyond frustrating. And we're all entitled to a long break from everything after all this. But it's completely their ballgame now, so we just need to watch and wait for the right moment to leap on their excesses and offer a better alternative.
Jewelwriter
7 years, 5 months ago
I agree... the sad thing is.... I'm embarrassed for the state I'm in as well as my country. (Georgia)
rick2tails
7 years, 5 months ago
between gerrymandering, the electoral college,unlimited dark money,and apathy.I sometimes wonder if it is possible for progressives to hold on to power or if were doomed to a Robocop future.
Jewelwriter
7 years, 5 months ago
With how some of these guys are grown...it's hard to see a good future.  It's like they gotta sell their soul in order to get in.
BessiTheBat
7 years, 5 months ago
I try and keep out of politics with this profile, but this journal and these responses are more spot on than you know.

I would only add that the response you gave to Aramillan earlier about why the democrats used corruption against Sanders...it's much more deeper than that. The "corruption" as seen by the average voter is just as you described, run of the mill coalition building. And it may seem alien and awful at first, but a basic realization must be made about a simple fact of life in America. There's no such thing as "special" interests in the way they're vilified in politics and the media. Everyone living right now with an opinion about ANYTHING has a "special" interest fighting on their behalf somewhere. As long as you live within the American system that is true. You are directly benefiting somehow from something a "special" interest is doing. It's not corruption or even collusion. It's the basic sausage making of party politics. Democrats, as you've pointed out, just have a harder time of it because of the interests they appeal to are generally more moral and public, and are sensitive to anything untoward.

So, that brings us back to the base question about why the DNC used those coalitions against Sanders instead of embracing him. You picked up on it before. He doesn't build coalitions. He doesn't raise money. The vast majority of the entire democratic party is funded during a presidential year off the fundraising of not just Presidential candidates but Primary candidates. Sanders wasn't keeping up his end of the bargain no matter what. He wasn't doing fundraisers, he wasn't doing GOTV for downballots. Hell, he wasn't even a Democrat for a minute before joining the primary, so he spent his entire 40 years in the Senate not doing any of this. Whereas Hillary has been doing this stuff since she was a Governor's wife in Arkansas. Is it any surprise that she swept the black and latino coalitions? Those are coalitions that Sanders never had to contend with, never had to know the movers and shakers of on a personal level.

And you saw how bungling he was when it came time to use the coalition he slap-dashed together after the Primary to try and get rid of DWS. It failed miserably because he's unfortunately an amateur at it. Anyone who says he would have done better just doesn't understand the minutia of what goes into making a Presidential run as a Democrat.
Norithics
7 years, 5 months ago
Yeah. Oh yeah. That's how the game is played. You have to give something to get something, that's how it works. But trying to say "That's not corruption" automatically labels you as an 'apologist for a crooked system,' so at this point fuck it. It's all corruption, fine. We have to endure some of it for the republic to thrive. I want people to get over this hill so damn badly.
BessiTheBat
7 years, 5 months ago
I suppose. I'm literally talking to a friend right now about this. The worry is going too far the other way. Do you tap into populist resentment? Does it matter if you run a pragmatist campaign free from anger baiting if you can't get anything done? Does it matter if you get anything done if you needed to run an anger baiting campaign to get there? The scales are tough to balance.

You're right though, now is not the time to engage in what-ifs or self-immolation. It's time to get to work for 2018. It's the only thing we can do. Advocating our positions will give us a good lay of the land to find some middle ground, but we need to be careful not to confuse advocation for adversarialness.
FelouseFarnayne
7 years, 5 months ago
This is an inherent problem with politics in general as simply put there is no such thing as an honest politician. Despite how much we would want someone to be above that and be a great example to all its just not possible with the way governments are. Its strange how politics require dishonesty to even stay within the game and one reason why I really despise and find myself jaded by the entire thing. This entire election is now my Exhibit A on why I don't ever like talking about politics or even dealing with them, it just upsets me greatly.
graymuzzle
7 years, 5 months ago
I am a self described commie pinko liberal progressive radical in a rural suburban town of thirty thousand. Two years ago, we got together and first kicked out the do-nothing Democrats, then we won the Mayor's race, and took over the Town Council and Board of Ed.
Since then, Republicans have done everything in their power to make life a living Hell. They disrupt meetings, make back room deals, and have no problem lying pretty much all the time. Still, we demolished a toxic factory, are building a bike path and riverfront recreation, relocated city offices to new quarters, and got rid of a lot of crony corruption. That said, they're still at it. It just never seems to end.
Exelbirth
7 years, 5 months ago
I'm of mixed agreement here.  Yes, the Republicans do have an easier time of things with their political tactics, but it is getting harder for them to stick with that tactic and have it work.  The nostalgia crowd is dying off, and the future generations of this nation are more politically aware than people like to believe.  It's far easier to learn about a politician's voting record these days than it was even a decade ago.

I think the mistake that the democratic party does is they pander to this mythical center voter, not being aware that they already are the center.  When you look at the issues that most of the nation favors, both the democratic party and the Republican party are to the right of the average citizen most of the time.

I do want to point out that if we had a direct democracy, Hillary would have been the winner, but barely.  Also, if Sanders was against Trump, pretty much all evidence indicates that he would have won easily.  I think that's because he was doing what democrats typically don't do: admit that things are shit.

One phrase I wish people would listen to more: "Be the change you want to see in the world."
pyrostinger
7 years, 5 months ago
I have nothing to add, I just want to say that I really fucking like this journal.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.