Saw this today, and … well, I’m not going to be so forgiving to people suggesting to vote Third Party rather than vote for Biden. If Trump wants me to do something, and you want me to do that same something, that tells me you’re aligned with Trump.
I think Biden supporters are uhh… plenty divided. No need for help…
I think that few people are Biden supporters and more are “We have to get Biden in so that Trump doesn’t get in and hopefully someone younger will come by for the next round but he’s still better than the alternative by a mile”.
We could have elected a shoe into office in 2020 the anti-Trump sentiment was so strong. Its not as strong now, and Biden is a worse candidate than he’s ever been.
Not really on basic principles. Just on methods and approaches. There’s general agreement that the civilian casualties in Gaza are too high, for instance. The debate is do we try to maintain some influence over Netanyahu to try to sway him, or do we just cut them off and then whatever happens over there is whatever happens, we’d wash our hands of it.
Then the people that go after him more hardcore aren’t exactly the strongest “supporters”.
that go after him more hardcore aren’t exactly the strongest “supporters”.
Yeah that’s just patently untrue. The people going hard in the paint on Biden from the left are your hardcore progressive and leftist base. People that actually volunteer on campaigns, donate, go door to door, sign people up to vote and otherwise do work to get people elected. Think our revolution, justice democrats, extinction rebellion etc… Its not people passively engaged in politics that are activated and engaged in these organizations which are fundamental to getting any Democrats elected. Its activated, deeply engaged, strongly opinionated people who do the work of getting Democrats elected.
And this highlights the divide in Biden’s support. You have armchair centrists who basically do almost nothing and are only minimally engaged in the political process wagging their fingers saying “Any Blue Will Do” at the cohort of individuals who are being critical of Biden, but whom are also operate the cranks of the actual machines that gets Democrats elected. Any leftist worth their salt understands strategic voting, but that’s not the point. The point has been that this neo-liberal, technocratic approach to voting that Democratic centrists are insisting on, is losing and will continue to lose this election. The only thing that has kept Biden in this game was an activist rebellion within the Democratic primary system that forced his response, and he’s only really offered a papier-mâché stiffening of his rhetoric on Israel, but has done basically nothing to fix the underlying issue. IF Biden doesn’t fundamentally shift his position on Gaza and Israel now, this is over. He’s lost this election.
In this vein, the only thing that can actually save Biden from him self is a complete and total rebellion within the DNC voter base, and to basically drag Biden to a better policy position. Otherwise he will lose this election. The lame ass excuse of “Well Trump would be worse” is actually working against Biden right now, because Biden is actually the president, not Trump. The phrase “The buck stops here” is so apropos in this situation, that its almost comical.
The people going hard in the paint on Biden from the left are your hardcore progressive and leftist base.
That seems to be the central point of your argument, and then you claim all the centrists are not really helping in the trenches. It seems to me this has no basis in fact, and there are plenty of more moderate dems that volunteer, donate, are politically active, etc.
I imagine the confusion stems from moderates not protesting at as high a percentage, since protests draw a lot of attention, where a lot of the other work is less dramatic. The core of the democratic party isn’t just excited young progressives though, it’s also educated soccer moms with time on their hands.
edit: Consider it this way: When Hilary ran against Bernie, did she just have no volunteers on her side, because they were all with Bernie?
You obviously have no clue who is involved or works on political campaigns.
Both left and right, its people who care deeply about something. You don’t do that kind of work if you are on the fence on issues. You do that kind of work when you have a strong belief about something.
You’re just assuming that there aren’t people that care about having moderate policy positions.
edit: Here’s another question to get at the heart of that. Are all moderates just “on the fence” between two extremes that draw the only people that feel strongly? Or is centrism its own philosophy, that someone can believe deeply in, even if you personally may not see the appeal?
Are you asking rhetorically or do you need basic instruction in the political philosophy and hegemony of the previous 100 years of US history?
Because none of this is unknown or really up for debate.
The problem I have with your argument is the implication that people who care deeply about helping the Democratic party are extreme leftists/progressives and not extreme neoliberals.
When you volunteer for a campaign, you aren’t volunteering for the “Democratic Party”, you are volunteering for a candidate, whom you may agree with somethings on but not others. However, people who want to make a difference are strategic about how they use their time. You pick whoever you are ideologically aligned with that you can stomach and you think has a chance of winning and you sign up and start dialing/ knocking on doors/ etc.
basically drag Biden to a better policy position.
I keep hearing words like “fight” and “drag” and “push” as to what we do to stop this, but they don’t mean actually fighting or dragging or pushing, just being annoying in ways that are easily dismissed.
I’ve gotten enough “fuck you I do what I want” letters from my reps and senators about things that I’ve given up “pushing” them in that way.
I think you make a good point on this. Its also not clear to me that any amount of cajoling is going to move Biden. However, I can’t think of anything else that can be ‘done’. If demanding he step further to us on a policy to get our votes when he’s losing an election doesn’t move him, it might be that he cares more about the policy position than he does winning the election.
And it kind of seems like that’s the case. He’s losing the election and he’s not moving on the policy position except in ‘leaked calls’ and sternly worded letters. If he doesn’t move left, he loses the election, but staying where he is at policy wise might be more important to him than preventing Trump from taking office. We shouldn’t assume he has the same priorities we do around government. Everything I’ve seen from his generation of geriatric politicians is an unfounded faith in the systems ability to self correct and resist things like the coup attempt in 2021. He’s from a generation that believes “the system works”, because its worked well for him/ them. I wouldn’t put it past him to leave us completely exposed to a fetishist take over because of this unfounded belief. In failing to support Ukraine when its core to the principals of a liberal democracy, and in supporting Israel while the actions they take are antithetical to a liberal democracy, he’s left us glaringly exposed to a fascist take over this election cycle.
The other part is that online lefties like us are a minority. If Biden does move left he risks losing the election to the majority of Americans who support Israel unconditionally. So nobody’s going to end up happy and he loses the election anyway.
He’s from a generation that believes “the system works”, because its worked well for him/ them.
This is a great insight that people who keep saying “we just need to push him after the election” don’t seem to get. Yes, I’m sure that in the past writing letters to Congress might have done something more than waste paper. But the system is so broken now that people don’t believe them and see the only way to get a message across that this is unacceptable is to not vote.
[Edit: I did not mean to write an essay but then here we are…]
If Biden does move left he risks losing the election to the majority of Americans
I agree completly overall, but I want to dig into this particular statement. My view on elections and electoralism has evolved, and at this point, I consider the ‘center’ of Americans to be a fiction. The basic paradigms driving votership in the US has shift to be basically cohorts of distinct voting blocs that have to be corralled into moving together. I think the right have used this understanding to great effect, and because of this they’ve been punching well above their weight class in terms of electoral impact relative to the actual number of people who vote. The right started this strategy in the 1960s with the southern strategy splitting off white evangelicals from Christians more broadly, and building them into a coherent voting bloc. Its more than I want to put the effort into writing down here, but my basic argument is that you don’t win modern elections through broad appeal. You win modern elections by appealing strongly to specific voting blocs and driving those cohorts of individuals to the polls. Bernie used this to almost snatch the primary from Hillary, before the DNC pumped the brakes and put the fix in. He wrangled voting blocs that were otherwise non-voters or more limited in their engagement with the party (leftists, progressives, black, lgbtqia, etc…) to engage a diverse coalition into voting for him, even if they were not individually united in their interests. Trump is doing a similar thing with libertarians, MAGA, qanon, anti-women voters, fascists, christian fascists, neo-liberals, and neo-conservatives. Internally they don’t really have a coherent issue set, but he basically goes to them one at a time, develops an understanding for their priorities, then speaks to those priorities directly. Trump isn’t making a broad appeal to the American center, he’s making a narrow appeal to hyper engaged individual blocs of voters, and its working extremely well. Biden comes from a different generation of neoliberalism (1984-2000) when there basically was 0 diversity in American politics and both parties effectively had the exact same set of policies. It was a unimodal distribution of issues, and so appealing to the center made sense. We no longer have a unimodal issue set or a unimodal distribution of voters. We have something, not even bi-modal, but more like two inverse paretos or poissons. There is almost no overlap in votership or policy priorities for the two parties or for the sets of demographic blocs that are going to show up to get some one elected.
So my overall argument is that an appeal to the center or to moderates is basically worthless because they don’t actually exist any more in the American electorate. There isn’t a silent majority. The unimodal distribution of votership died during/ after Clintons second term. Since then we’ve become increasing polarised as a country and as a votership because we no longer overlap whatsoever in terms of legislative priorities. As such, there is little value in appeals to moderation or centrism, because there are no voter blocs in those locations you can drive out to the polls. And recursive or negative attacks are also of little value because blocs aren’t formed ‘against’ things, they are formed ‘for things’ so you have to be ‘pro-something’ to drive a bloc. I think Trump gets this very much and is using it effectively, whereas Biden and basically all Democrats apart from Bernie simply do not understand how the electorate is formed and what it takes to win a national election at this point. 2020 was exceptional in that Bernie had fully activated a massive bloc of progressive and leftist voters on issues that were priorities for them. Young people and progressives won 2020 for the Democrats, and have been basically rewarded with a punch to the teeth in terms of Bidens policies.
In summary, modern voters don’t like Democrats or Republicans, but are voting based on their particular issue sets or identities and who is speaking to them or prioritizing those issues. Trump figured this out in 2016 and has been using it to great effect. Biden still thinks voters are “Democrats” first, and that their policy positions come second. This view is a holdover from a political paradigm that is no longer present.
Thanks for the essay! I liked it a lot. (Though the first paragraph could be broken up for readability.)
The tl;dr I’m getting is this: Both parties are “big tent” parties now, and Democrats seem to have forgotten this and are operating on 90s political theory. Sound about right? If so, I agree wholeheartedly.
So you support apartheid, you just draw the line at too many dead children?
Stupid hot-take. Israel has been an ally of the United States for decades. Biden is trying to walk a fine line between maintaining relations with them (despite their current despicable right-wing government, which might not last long, given the huge calls for a new election in Israel) and pressuring them to stop. Trump would gladly suggest paving Gaza over and turning it into a parking lot, and voting for any third-party candidate is identical in result to voting for Trump.
Biden, who once said “I’m a Zionist, if Israel didn’t exist, we’d have to create it” is walking a fine line? Give me a break.
They’re projecting what they wish Biden believed onto what he actually believes.
Biden is a Zionist. His words, not ours.
I just want to make you aware that your argument is that Biden is basically not responsible for his position on Israel. Like I really want you to actually notice what that does rhetorically, because you are effectively ceding the position that Biden is bad, but Trump would be worse (maybe).
So is Biden the President or is he not? Like, the fucking point is that Biden can do better right now and is choosing not to. Is he the President and capable of such a thing or is he not? With whom does the buck stop?
You need to start understanding that the consequence of the “Any blue will do argument” is the recognition that Biden is a weak, unfit leader that doesn’t have accountability, and that this rhetorical structure is what is losing Biden this election. Making excuses for Biden on this policy position weakens him as a candidate, and further ensures a Trump victory.
That’s a blatant misreading. He is fully responsible for his position, but due to the circumstances of this situation, his position is necessarily nuanced. It has to be, to avoid destabilizing the entire Middle East.
Imagine he just declares Israel no longer an ally, and tells them they’re on their own. How long before Iran attacks? How long before other Muslim-majority countries are dragged into it? How long before it becomes a broader conflict, with Israel fighting basically everyone?
How long before we end up dragged into it anyway?
Biden is trying to pressure Netanyahu with what leverage he has, and he is trying to prevent it from become a large regional conflict. I’m sure he wishes BiBi wasn’t the one in charge there - most Israeli citizens certainly seem to want him gone, too - but wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up faster.
With Biden, we have someone in the White House who actually gives a shit whether Palestinians get to live. That’s a hell of a lot better than anything Trump has to offer.
With Biden, we have someone in the White House who actually gives a shit whether Palestinians get to live.
Biden is, and always has been, a full throat-ed Zionist. He’s maybe the furthest right Democrat on this issue from his cohort/ demographic of senators. He’s hard right in this way. Further right than Trump. You are projecting nuance and your own desire to belief that Biden is good on Israel onto Biden beliefs. But by Biden’s own words and his stated beliefs, he is doing pretty much exactly what we would expect him to do in support of Zionism. If you map current actions onto his previously stated beliefs, nothing is out of order. The only change has bee some lip-service sound byte level saber rattling. There is no need to project deep nuance onto the situation if you just look at Biden’s words and policy positions and map them to what he does. He lines up as a squarely Neo-conservative Zionist in rhetoric (preter Israels advancement of the genocide of the Palestinian people post October) and has lined up squarely as a Neo-conservative Zionist in action. He makes decisions and acts like the person he said he is.
The alternative is Trump. Tell me Trump’s position on Palestine.
So, if Biden doesn’t win, Trump WILL.
What’s Trump’s plan?
Arm Israel and expand the genocide.How can you possibly think you have any kind of moral high ground when you’re willing to let someone win that will make the problem worse?
This is a literal example of the trolley problem.
If you do nothing and don’t vote, millions of children die.
If you vote, thousands of children will die.
But you know who’s killing those children?
Benjamin Netanyahu
Yet you fuckers act like Biden is over there doing it with his bare hands.Get your morals straightened out, because if Trump wins, that blood is on your hands as well as his, and I’d rather only have a little blood of my hands than a lot.
Its like you are dis-interested in actually winning this election…
Ah the great anonymous source. I’m sure it isn’t someone in the democrat campaign! They would never!
It’s a source talking to the NYT. If these were journalists with a long track record of deception, then I would raise questions, but the NYT is generally decent.
Anon sources are totally cool, but only if they’re being cited by someone that is trustworthy.
It’s a source talking to the NYT.
Yes.
If these were journalists with a long track record of deception
Yes.
the NYT is generally decent.
I had a good laugh, thanks!
Anonymous sources aren’t totally cool, they are the absolute bottom of the barrel of journalism.
They should absolutely not be used for opinion, and normally need to be backed up by third party evidence.
The AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source when sourcing is anonymous. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. […] We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, we must describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information.
Anonymous sources aren’t totally cool, they are the absolute bottom of the barrel of journalism.
I heard from an anonymous source that you sniff butts.
Kind of proving the point aren’t you. I eat ass, I don’t sniff it.
You don’t take in the bouquet of a fine wine before sipping?
