See, the difference between our perspectives is that you’re punching down at voters rather than punching up at politicians. Maybe if every single person who stood by their valid moral principles was convinced to abandon them, it would’ve changed the outcome. I don’t know how that’s supposed to be achieved, exactly, aside from trying to shame people for having morals, which I don’t expect to be particularly effective.
Alternatively, instead of changing the public in order to be in line with what politicians want, we could change politicians to be in line with what voters want. I think the word for that is “democracy.”
It sounds like this might be a deeper part of disagreement: fundamentally the voters pick the politicians. Blaming voters isn’t punching down, that is the ground floor and the only place progress is made. Its the ONLY place to punch.
Politicians serve at the leisure of the people. It is our duty to vote them in or out. It’s not punching down to tell voters to do their jobs, voting is literally the only ask for the vast majority of people. Besides jury duty, it is the minimum form of governmental/political participation a citizen can do.
There is no excuse for doing nothing besides being lazy. I am going out of my way to respect your perspective and your right to have it, but at the end of the day I think doing nothing and being proud of it is a cop out, and saying “it’s all the same in the end” is not just a cop out but is also disingenuous.
No they don’t. The DNC is a private entity that can nominate on whatever basis it feels like. That’s especially true considering the nonsense of the 2024 primary. When there was something more of a semblance of a legitimate primary, in 2016, the voters soundly rejected Harris. That is, of course, before we get into Citizens United, dark money, the electoral college, etc. Bourgeois elections are not a legitimate representation of the people’s will. There’s even been studies that show no correlation between how popular a policy is and how likely it is to be enacted. Opinion polls likewise show strong, consistent disapproval of Congress.
Suppose the public is pro-Palestine - when did we ever get a chance to express that and have it represented in the political system? If we never got the chance, then how can you claim that Kamala’s Zionism is an expression of popular will? The only opportunity I ever saw was to vote third party, which I did, but apparently that’s not a legitimate method of making my voice heard on account of you’re currently criticizing me for it. So then there was no method at all.
See, the difference between our perspectives is that you’re punching down at voters rather than punching up at politicians. Maybe if every single person who stood by their valid moral principles was convinced to abandon them, it would’ve changed the outcome. I don’t know how that’s supposed to be achieved, exactly, aside from trying to shame people for having morals, which I don’t expect to be particularly effective.
Alternatively, instead of changing the public in order to be in line with what politicians want, we could change politicians to be in line with what voters want. I think the word for that is “democracy.”
It sounds like this might be a deeper part of disagreement: fundamentally the voters pick the politicians. Blaming voters isn’t punching down, that is the ground floor and the only place progress is made. Its the ONLY place to punch.
Politicians serve at the leisure of the people. It is our duty to vote them in or out. It’s not punching down to tell voters to do their jobs, voting is literally the only ask for the vast majority of people. Besides jury duty, it is the minimum form of governmental/political participation a citizen can do.
There is no excuse for doing nothing besides being lazy. I am going out of my way to respect your perspective and your right to have it, but at the end of the day I think doing nothing and being proud of it is a cop out, and saying “it’s all the same in the end” is not just a cop out but is also disingenuous.
No they don’t. The DNC is a private entity that can nominate on whatever basis it feels like. That’s especially true considering the nonsense of the 2024 primary. When there was something more of a semblance of a legitimate primary, in 2016, the voters soundly rejected Harris. That is, of course, before we get into Citizens United, dark money, the electoral college, etc. Bourgeois elections are not a legitimate representation of the people’s will. There’s even been studies that show no correlation between how popular a policy is and how likely it is to be enacted. Opinion polls likewise show strong, consistent disapproval of Congress.
Suppose the public is pro-Palestine - when did we ever get a chance to express that and have it represented in the political system? If we never got the chance, then how can you claim that Kamala’s Zionism is an expression of popular will? The only opportunity I ever saw was to vote third party, which I did, but apparently that’s not a legitimate method of making my voice heard on account of you’re currently criticizing me for it. So then there was no method at all.