The People that anger me the most: The "Independents" who voted for neither

Thoughts about apathy and fascism. First, capitalism and the “liberal democracy” we associate with it have long promised to solve all our social problems: but they don’t, and they can’t. Indeed, they bring new intrinsic problems that are sold as features: loss of the commons, economic instability, fear of unemployment, the alienation of being under the control of the boss, the politician, and the bureaucrat, the particular kinds of sexism and racism, the separation from nature, the disruption of community, the alienation of consumerism, and more. We may be told these are trade-offs that bring us a better life, but the people who gain from the trade-offs are not the people who pay the price.

That means there is a huge well of dissatisfaction, resentment, anger, and fear even when the system is working well, for the pundits’ definition of well. Crises, economic, political, and social, crank it all up and people conclude the system does not work and seek solutions. Without positive, progressive, democratic options, they are vulnerable to the false hope of fascism. It’s not so much fascists appeal to a non-existent golden age so much as they tap into that well of dissatisfaction, etc. and turn the heat up and play on that longstanding sense of grievance with “the system” to promise a new way. And they legitimate that anger and give voice to it in ways that offer temporary catharsis.

Meanwhile, the moderates never say, “look, you’re right, the system has long failed you and your anger is entirely justified. Let’s build something better together.” They hedge. They compromise, they sound hypocritical, because they want to maintain and tinker with the system that brought people to the point of crisis and despair and that keeps the moderates in power.

At the same time, when capitalism stumbles and profit rates fall, when people organize and push back, a segment of the capitalist class is only too eager to promote fascism and state violence as a way to hang onto their wealth and power. Fascism drowns out other alternatives because of the power of the wealthy and their control of the media and political system. Their control isn’t complete, but it doesn’t need to be to be effective. They drown out progressive alternative voices, break unions and left movements, leaving people with few real choices and opportunities to build something positive.

And again, the moderates who largely say “vote for us because we will make the system better using the most modern tools and technologies to do so” are telling people thier anger and fear and actual historical experience of “the system” don’t matter and they should settle down and wait for things to get better. That patronizing response only fuels anger.

Given all that, the fact that so many people conclude that voting is not the answer or that voting for alternative parties is important may make some sense. It is an opportunity, not a crisis, for a progressive left. And we see in some of the part of the reason for the appeal of Bernie et al.

I’m not saying “moderates are fascists,” not at all. I am saying they do not address the deeper problems of the system and so are unlikely to reach large numbers of people. That they then turn around and blame those people for the rise of fascism doesn’t help.

“Personal attacks” are directed at “persons,” and my comment is clearly not directed a particular person, and so your reprimand is misguided. What I said but you failed miserably to infer was “only pieces of shit want me to vote for a piece of shit.” Who’s the specific person that I attacked?

Moderating:

You were very obviously taking a backhanded shot at @DocCathode.

Here is a formal Warning for arguing moderation outside of About This Message Board.

You’re wrong. But it’s a warning, so I don’t care that you’re wrong and won’t contest it, because you’re not worth it. And I’m not arguing moderation. I’m just telling you, I don’t give a crap about you. And that’s not an attack.

Moderating:

As it would be inappropriate for @Aspenglow to moderate this comment, I will do so. @Balthisar, while you may feel this was a statement of intent, it is our opinion that it is clearly a personal attack, despite your disclaimer. This has been part of a pattern of personal attacks in this thread which had previously secured you two notes from the moderator you attacked:

On April 5th.

On April 11th.

Despite this consideration, you made the additional attack on @DocCathode after which Aspenglow delivered the warning, followed by an effort to dispute the moderation in fact, if not in name, and making an additional personal attack on Aspenglow while they were working as a moderator.

As such, you are suspended for one day. Obviously your feelings are high, and I feel you can benefit from a cooling down period and reconsider this pattern of attacks. At this time, I am not adding a thread ban, but advise that you carefully avoid any more personal attacks in light of your failure to comply with moderation above.

Also while each grain of sand doesn’t makes loads of difference that grain of sand is the biggest thing you can do to prevent fascism and protect it’s victims. The “grain of sand” that was our vote in the 2024 was likely the last say we had in whether we wanted fascism or not

Whatever che Guevara fantasies the left might have they are not rising up and smashing the state. Even if they dedicate their lives to being a revolutionary (which let’s face they won’t, beyond posting late capitalism memes on social media) all the “direct action” they will ever attempt will never amount to anything like their personal decision to choose fascism in the 2024 election, in terms of preventing fascism or helping it’s victims.

Not that we shouldn’t all be opposing the Trump regime in every way possible but none of it will be as consequential as voting for for Harris in 2024.

In any formal trolley-problem situation, there are an array of things you don’t get to make a choice about and then a choice you do get to make.

In real life, you don’t have the same lack of choice about the other factors, at least not entirely. When the only options presented to you as “you have to pick between these” are untenable, you can pose serious questions about the things presented to you as axiomatic and unavoidable. Your dad and mom say you can either wear the burqua and submit to your husband or you can be stoned in the public square — you’re allowed to consider your other options, however implausible your success might be. Being alive and human allows you to do so.

Don’t hold a gun to my head, tell me to choose between handing over my wallet or getting shot, and then describe my action as a choice. If it’s my choice I get to question the parameters. Maybe I’ll try to convince you I don’t have a wallet; maybe I’ll see if I can kick you in the nuts and run for it.

We don’t know that Trump would have accepted electoral defeat, and it actually seems unlikely that he would have. We have reason to think parts of the deck were being stacked in his favor in case the votes didn’t propel him into office. We don’t know for sure there weren’t shenanigans involved in the race. We have way sufficient reason to believe outside and inside forces were manipulating the media in carefully calculated ways so as to make the election something other than a fair polling of political opinion.

At what point were you going to say to yourself “this isn’t a decision moment, this is a goddam stick-up”?

You probably aren’t accomplishing a lot of useful things if you’re in here pointing fingers and assigning blame for events that are already in the past. Do you have any ideas about what you’re going to do about the situation we’re now in?

Since it’s a figurative stick-up then the sane thing to do is hand over my figurative wallet and hope I don’t get shot anyway.

I think a lot of these voters see what is happening on the news and simply do not want any part of it, and when asked about how they stand on things, claim they are “indepedent” and have qualms with both sides resulting in their ballot neutrality. I think they internally realize they should have a position on politics, and yet, want to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the results of elections.

I appreciate this observation – first time I’ve heard it expressed thus, and I think it’s insightful.

We’ve all seen the bumper stickers dating back decades that say “Don’t blame me; I voted for [whoever just lost]”

This is just the same thing writ larger: “Don’t blame me; I have no involvement whatsoever in politics. It’s all you all’s fault, totally not mine.”

It’s a childish idea, but a lot of people are childish thinkers. Or non-thinkers.

So, all it takes to be a third-party voter that doesn’t support fascism is to lean to the right? If I put my mindset more to the right than to the left, then I immediately stop having my third-party vote support Trump and it starts supporting Harris instead? Well, that is easy enough. From now on I lean right. No more supporting fascism!

Jokes aside, it always baffled me how both sides convinced themselves that I would support their cause if only I didn’t vote third-party. It’s always something like, “By voting third-party you are helping the other side win!” Are you sure? What makes you so certain that if I didn’t vote third-party I wouldn’t vote for the other team directly? After all, both sides say the same thing to me and one of them has to be wrong. And if I did listen and started actually voting for the less terrible of the two major candidates all these math majors that say that voting third party is the same as voting for the bad guy would quickly learn the different between +1 and +0 when it comes to the total votes a candidate receives.

If the choice is between having 1 person try to beat me up and 15 watching or having all 16 try to beat me up, I will take the 1 person every time. There is a massive difference between actively supporting a candidate with your vote and just sitting it out (or voting third-party).

When the “sides” are fascism and not fascism. it really not that baffling. There are two answers “yes, I’d like some fascism” or “no I wouldn’t”. Those are the only two options, “maybe” or “it always baffled me how both sides convinced themselves that I would support their cause if only I didn’t vote third-party.” All mean “yes I’d like some fascism please.”.

Now we have fascism because too many people particularly too many politically informed people on the left decided to choose fascism.

This. They’d love to convince themselves there’s some daylight between “I choose fascism” and “I won’t lift a finger to try to prevent fascism”. But there is no such daylight.

If the choice was between Mitt Romney Republicanism and John Kerry Democrat-ism I could see the argument that voting 3rd party or abstaining is a principled move to try to pull your more-favored mainstream party in your favored direction. Or to supplant your less-favored mainstream party with something new growing elsewhere on the political spectrum.

But that was not the choices on offer in 2016, 2020, nor 2024. It’s been well over a decade since those idealized choices made any kind of sense. Anyone paying any attention who has not figured this out with over a decade to do so is a total loss as a human being.

In my experience people who claim to neutral between the parties or not be political start expressing right wing views that moment anything politically relevant comes up. Often outright parroting Trump. I tend to just not believe people who claim to be apolitical or neutral at this point.

You’re missing the (pretty clear) point… your lack of voting for any viable candidate is an impactful choice relative to voting for a viable candidate.

You go to the store, and there are two flavors of ice cream, chocolate and vanilla.

“Which do you want?” asks the clerk.

“Strawberry,” you say. “I hate chocolate and vanilla.”

“Well, those are your choices,” says the clerk.

“Strawberry.”

“Um… ok. Let me give you chocolate.”

You now are in position where you exerted no influence on which flavor you were going to get. Strawberry was never a choice, even though you could say it out loud.

If you truly had no preference between chocolate and vanilla, then fine. Demanding strawberry is as reasonable (though petulant) a choice as any. But if you actually would prefer one over the other, than strawberry is a vote against the choice you prefer, and for the one you don’t.

I do see your point, but in this example, it is already clear that either Vanilla or Chocolate is going to win, and I don’t really want either. I can choose to saw Strawberry so the store knows there is demand for that and may choose to stock it later, or at least stock Neapolitan in an attempt to appease all the groups. If the store is going to continue to only stock chocolate and vanilla, I am going to continue to have no desire to shop there and going to continue not to be happy with whatever flavor the rest of the people are voting for me to be stuck with. Vanilla may taste worse than chocolate, but neither are good, and I can suffer through either one until the store stocks strawberry or Neapolitan.

But @Procacious, do you honestly think, in terms of danger, toxicity, or threat to the post-WW II order, that there is no difference between Harris and Trump?

I would definitely say there is a difference. The main point of disagreement between me and the theme of this thread is how important it is to vote for the lesser of two evils when you know for certain that your vote will not impact the results. To go back to the ice cream example, I can see the other hands in the air. 20 people are voting for vanilla and 15 for chocolate. I can vote for chocolate because I like it better, but chocolate will still lose. And since I really prefer strawberry, I want everyone to know that I would prefer strawberry to be one of the choices next time. They will never know my preference if I just pick chocolate because it is the less terrible choice.

Except that, in the case of an election, you don’t see the hands in the air. So you honestly have no accurate idea of the aggregate voter preferences. You may have a good guess, based on whatever analytics are out there, but there could be some unseen trend in the works.

So, IMHO, it’s critical for each voter to assume that their vote could be a deciding vote.