I don’t really care if you’re civil or not, and I wasn’t talking about that at all. My critique of your post is that it’s attempting to smuggling in falsehoods and misinformation under the guise of oily “may” and “might” language that prevent you from having to own it. Which is readily on display as evidenced by the fact that you dodged all of these points to make a milquetoast observation about “civility”.
I tend to disagree. I don’t feel the parties are setting the agenda. Advocacy groups initiate the ideas and then the political parties are the means that translate these ideas into winning elections and passing legislation.
I do agree that what political parties are saying isn’t just the result of widespread popular movements. Some advocacy groups are quite small and focused - but they have financial power which compensates for their lack of widespread popular support. This is why we see so many laws and programs which favor corporations.
But if you don’t have a few billion dollars lying around, going out and getting popular support can achieve the same end.
Difference being in 2016, you weren’t really sure what you were getting with Trump. In 2024 there was no excuse … you knew exactly what you were or were not voting for.
I’ve been slow to contribute further because I have been revising a workshop I’m facilitating this week. The workshop is about bringing together activists who represent the different viewpoints expressed in this thread and many more. The participants run the gamut from “I don’t like X, but we have to work with them” to “we need to get the vote out” to “voting just encourages them” to “we need to compromise” to “burn it down!” to “we must support the lesser of two evils” and more. Often the participants have quarrelled, sometimes fiercely, with each in previous campaigns and actions, over tactics and strategies, so they come with some strong preconceptions and even resentments.
The point of the workshop is to help people understand the other positions, to avoid tearing each other apart, and to find ways to harness the strengths each brings to the issue so all can work together. This workshop has been successful in the past and I am looking forward to facilitating it again.
Four things participants regularly report. The first is initial strong negative reactions to the other positions. The second is the realization these heated reactions often reflect personalities, status, relation to those in power, etc. more than reasoned tactical positions. The third is compromise and progress are often possible once the first two observations are made clear. The fourth is it is important to pose questions and suggestions rather than announce incontrovertible truth and to avoid imputing motives to people.
So it may be the case–I say “may” because it quite clearly may not be the case in many situations–that there are creative and collaborative ways to avoid the either/or of “lesser evil/utter rejection” dichotomy.
What are the arguments against choosing the lesser evil? I read your link up-thread, but could only get to section 2 before the paywall.
I am aware of these classes of arguments:
- The system is flawed and voting perpetuates it.
- There is no distinction between candidates on the set of issues that are important to me.
- Not voting (or voting for a third-party candidate) sends a message to one of the parties to shift their platform.
Are there others?
- I will be able to claim that my conscience is clear no matter what horrors ensue since I didn’t vote for it.
You’re attacking the man’s tone instead of his arguments. I suggest dropping that approach because it doesn’t help advance the discussion. In particular, his description of his workshop is a more than adequate defense against your accusations. I’m not in agreement with his conclusions, but let him make his relevant point.
That’s the one I worry about. I feel there are some people who argue that the Democrats and the Republicans are essentially the same and are secretly cheering for Trump. Not because they agree with Trump. But they figure that Trump is so bad that he’ll end up causing the whole government system to collapse.
And these people want that because they believe that if the current system collapses, a new wonderful system will arise in its place. Freed of the shackles of capitalism and government and laws, the people will happily band together to form a new society where everyone is free and nobody coerces anyone else and all property is held communally for the good of all and animals can talk.
This is not going to happen. If our current system collapses, what will replace it will be a dictatorship. Depending on how things break down, it might be a right wing dictatorship or a left wing dictatorship. Maybe a theocracy. But it will be worse than what we have now and a lot worse than what we had prior to Trump.
A bit of an offshoot to 3, but I would also add “Voting is my best opportunity to provide feedback/show dissatisfaction with the current administration.”
Incorrect. I took specific aim at his arguments, and the way he’s soft-peddling them in conditional language, and he incorrectly decided that my comments are about civility. He’s also mischaracterized some accurate descriptions of his arguments, a.k.a “nihilism” and trying to dismiss these as name-calling. He’s trying to make his opponents arguments about tone and civility rather than engage with the substance.
Let’s revisit a quote:
This is really about pushing a false narrative in the guise of what Americans “may” be concerned about. Here he’s casually accusing the Democrats of a failure to shape the Supreme Court when they had the chance, and I challenged him on specifics of this assertion, and he sidestepped it entirely by pretending it was some sort of tonal disagreement.
One reason people are less engaged with elections is that they believe things that are demonstrably false, which Kropotkin is furthering with statements like this, while distancing from it with hedging language like “may” and “might” which serve to deflect critique. This is no different from Trump saying “many people are saying that I should run for a third term.” It’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand to soft-sell falsehoods, and these falsehoods are part of why people are confused about why their vote counts. This specifically is part of the problem.
Kropotkin is objectively not a nihilist, because he cares about society and wants to build a good one, as do we all. Nihilism is a very frightening thing and not a concept to be tossed around lightly. I only hope and pray that nihilism will never arise for real, because that would form a breach in our very reality.
Moderating:
The recent back and forth with @HMS_Irruncible, @Kropotkin, and to a lesser extent @Johanna is in danger of sidetracking the thread. @HMS_Irruncible - several of your posts have come very close (albeit in exquisitely polite language) to calling @Kropotkin a liar, which they have denied upthread. It’s better to focus on the OP and how to choose said lesser of evil than to attack the motivations of those posters that disagree with you. I choose to believe you are all acting out of honest motives and good will in defending your POVs. Let’s dial down the appearance of personal attacks.
This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent records.
Accelerationism is the term. Specifically this version:
Several commentators have also used the label accelerationist to describe a controversial political strategy articulated by Slavoj Žižek.[12] An often-cited example of this is Žižek’s assertion in a November 2016 interview with Channel 4 News that, were he an American citizen, he would vote for U.S. president Donald Trump, despite his dislike of Trump, as the candidate more likely to disrupt the political status quo in that country.[69] Richard Coyne characterized his strategy as seeking to “shock the country and revive the left.”
Often compared to the position of the pre-Hitler Communist Party in Germany, who believed that Hitler would create a reaction they could use to gain power. “After Hitler, us.”
They died in the camps.
I feel incrementalism is the better plan.
Look at what the conservatives have achieved. They didn’t start with Trump. They started back in the sixties with Nixon and Goldwater. But every election, by voting for the Republican party, they pushed the Republicans a little farther to the right.
I think there are an increasing number of accelerationists about. It’s mostly been an attribute of the extremist right, which wants to end liberal democracy and re-cement the traditional hierarchy of white men, but there are left wing accelerationists, too, who believe that our creaking, poorly representative democracy needs to crash and clear the way for an improved system closer aligned with better democracies around the western world.
I’ve never seen a left wing accelerationist whose goal is that we become more like European democracies. The gap there is small enough that those people are incrementalists, not accelerationists.
Left wing accelerationists like Hasan Piker have a much further target in mind. Same with the other example provided, Slavoj Zizek.
People like Žižek are clear-cut ideologues. IMHO the vast, vast majority of accelerationists, actually declared as such or just de facto, are not that thoughtful about what they want. Most are just progressives, not Marxists. They just don’t want this and think trying to clear out the sclerotic mess that is American politics can only be done by either stressing it (“we won’t vote and that will force them to reckon with us out of self-interest”) or letting it self-destruct (“only by letting the system burn itself down will people finally wise up”). They’re wrong in either case (IMHO), but I don’t think there is anything like a unified vision of what they want to see other than vaguely more progressive. I think frankly many would be happy with a more ethnically diverse and harmonious version of Norway, never mind how we got there. The actual doctrinaire Marxists are quite, quite rare in the United States. Thousands, not millions.
I agree, and I have a lot more respect for him than for people who or more mask on. Zizek clearly says what his end goals are, and I can agree or disagree with different aspects of that as I feel is appropriate. Compared to the way many people of his political persuasion act, this is remarkably refreshing.
I mean, Hasan Piker is the largest Lefty content creator online, and as he has said on shows like The Deprogram or The Vanguard*, he is a Marxist-Leninist. I’m sure that many (most?) of his literally millions of subscribers across multiple platforms are not actually Marxists like he is, but rather “useful idiots” who adopt accelarationist views for progressive reasons rather than a true belief in Marxism. But that still leaves huge numbers of people who are at the very least sympathetic to his more hard-line ML views, AND it means that insofar as their accelerationist beliefs are inspired by Hasan, this is a person with Marxist ideology convincing people to support Accelerationism for his own reasons.
In other words, when progressives adopt counterproductive accelerationist policies, I think it is in large part because people who are NOT progressive but much, much more extreme are pushing them towards those accelarationist beliefs; and those influencers are doing so not because they believe in progressive causes but because they ARE ideologues.
It’s very much the same dynamic that happened on the Right in years past, where reactionary fascists convinced conservatives to support policies that be legit fascists for what they believed were conservative reasons.
*Are we really supposed to believe that the guys who called their podcast The Vanguard are not ideologues?