this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
720 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

7682 readers
3512 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Democratic political strategy

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cenotaph@mander.xyz 118 points 4 months ago

Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 80 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"Why isn't anybody voting for us"

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I think the question they ask is more like "why are people voting for the other side?" ...leading to "we need to be more like them"

[–] jewbacca117@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The problem is theres nothing on our side. Our choices are right of center and so far right they fell off the graph.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

There's also the choice of doing what Bernie did, and build up an alternative from the local level, but that would require people to realise that politics aren't restricted to TV-level races nor snooze for 4 years.

If Americans did that in large scale they could to the democratic party the reverse of what the tea party did to the republican party.

[–] jewbacca117@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (4 children)

The Democratic party hates Bernie though. Theyran so hard against him back in '16 and '20. I swear the Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than run an actual left candidate.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 4 months ago (4 children)

That's because there are only a handful of "Bernies". A party is not a monolithical block, it's the sum of it's members, and the centrists end up being in charge because they are the ones that end up representing the party at most levels. If you want to shift the balance you need leftists to run for school boards, and city halls, and build from there by starting taking over the state committees and DNC members elected by each state (which in turn control the DNC).

If even the most extreme of the extreme right managed to do it in the republican party, there's no reason why a moderate left movement couldn't do it in the democratic party - if anything I would expect it to be easier.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

They only look at the votes that were cast not voters who stayed home

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 40 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The rightward shift of the GOP and the tendency of the seemingly infinite number of spineless Dem careerist politicians to seek compromise is very real, but please remember the 90s and 2000s, everyone. They were not as rosy and left-wing as you remember; while not nearly enough, the Dems are notably more left than they were then.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (5 children)

In the larger picture the rightward trend is kind of true on economic fronts.

But yeah, since the 90s we've slowly moved left.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Since the 90s we've moved left economically as well. The 90s were where the Dems had their massive neoliberal shift, after all. Not hard to be more left than THAT.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Right, that's why I said in the larger picture. Before Reagan, taxing the rich and a living minimum wage were standard. Now it's considered radical. But we've definitely moved back to the left since then.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Zier@fedia.io 32 points 4 months ago

Always reach across the isle and punch nazis.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

The Overton Window is set in an abandoned lot. The house burned down a long time ago.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

not saying i disagree, but people always link this article as though it even has a section on partisan politics. it doesn’t, or really even pose any evidence that suggests the effect applies to the overton window. would be curious if there are any sources that pose evidence.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

i just read it and don't think it applies here. the effect seems to apply to situations where the movement in one direction perpetuates itself, due to cyclic nature or outside influences.

if the democratic party wanted to, they could totally pull the overton window to the left. it's not like there's a perpetual demanded for the democratic party to move to the right; they just want to do it.

[–] USNWoodwork@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago (3 children)

This fails to recognize that for a very long time things trended left. I remember talking to someone in the 90s and we went down a list of major issues and the left had essentially won on all of them. Roe vs Wade EPA Gay Marriage Welfare Reform and Child Tax Credits

My hope for the Democratic party is that they go to a single issue for the next National election, and that issue should be Anti-trust/Breaking up monopolies

[–] brianary@startrek.website 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

That's an important issue, but if Democrats ever see power again, it'll be important to focus on re-enfranchisement (RCV, instant runoff, or anything fairer than FPTP; NPVIC; national mail voting; mandatory voting), on judicial reform to undo the corruption and incompetence that has been packed there. Without those, keeping any gains will be impossible.

Then, triaging existential threats is critical, which will mean fighting climate change, investing in public transport (trains), and breaking up trusts will have to be pursued simultaneously. Stopping any support for genocide needs to happen as soon as possible.

There will be plenty more structural changes to fix beyond that: Protecting whistleblowers and protesters, improving FOIA, replacing norms with laws (Emoluments Clause enforcement, financial records disclosure, no insider trading for Congressmembers, &c), and all manner of civil rights protections and police reform.

After all that, it'll be time for the stuff I've been hoping for: nationalizing healthcare and Internet access, and copyright reform.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 16 points 4 months ago (4 children)

just playin' the long game. won't be long now and it will loop around to the far left.

[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So, everyone's hoping for the bit overflow

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 4 months ago

Yup, we just need to accelerate and we totally won't end up in a fascist dystopia

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 months ago

Ah, so they are doing horseshoe theory in real life?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] prototact@programming.dev 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Frankly the people are the ones moving further to the right because the state does not educate them and regulate corporate power, transforming the public into a myopic panicked herd.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago (4 children)

That's actually false. When it comes to policy preferences, the actual electorate swings pretty far left compared to the right wing and far right parties they can choose between. Universal health care, parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wage all enjoy broad and firm popular support, and neither party is even talking about this.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 4 months ago (4 children)

!! yea

always important to remember that the electorate’s preference in policy has only a loose relationship to who they vote for. this air gap is where most elections are fought, where strong messaging tightens the gap and messaging failures loosen it. the 2024 presidential election had a hella loose connection between party and people.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 months ago (4 children)

How cute, you guys are trying to rewrite it in your favor. Too bad the science says otherwise.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (3 children)

These stats are about the policy preferences of the electorate, while OP is about the politicians. But your picture is a fantastic illustration as to why the democrats lost the election. It's because they keep moving further right (look for example at their recent pro-fracking, pro-border wall, pro-genocide presidential candidate).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Cyborg@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

"You guys" Bro the only us and them are billionaires and everyone else. Stop being distracted and focus on the problem, the fuckers siphoning any and all value away from honest hard working people and then blaming other less fortunate honest hard working people for it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] madjo@feddit.nl 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

This could mean that there’s room on the left for a brand new party.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Only if America will implement proportional representation

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It could if we weren't locked into a two party system.

[–] madjo@feddit.nl 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I mean, if there ever was a time for a grass roots growing of a third party, it would be NOW, not a year before the election with Putin-stooge Jill Stein.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I know posts like those feel good, but the objective fact is that the political conversation and (much more importantly) public policy has moved drastically leftward in both shorter terms (the last decade) as well as more medium-term measurements (the last fifty years).

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Universal health care used to be something that was at least mentioned during campaigns, now not so anymore. Fracking, inhumane border policies to keep those crazed illegal immigrants out, explicit support for genocide; these are far right policies, and the dems are falling over themselves to support it. Every cycle they move further right.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If there's so much appetite for a progressive/socialist party in the USA, how come there isn't one that gets a significant amount of financing and votes?

[–] moncharleskey@lemmy.zip 28 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because that wouldn't be in the interest of the billionaire class so it's actively suppressed. I mean, the government killed Malcolm X and MLK Jr. There's no telling how many more. Look at the response to BLM or the pro-Palestinian protest in comparison to the Jan 6 traitors. The left are painted as radicals for wanting equality and healthcare, while the right gets a free pass on being pedophiles, con men, and foreign assets.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children)

I'm talking about a party with a platform, doing an actual campaign to get people elected, not a protest movement.

Look at how much money Harris managed to get from regular people, you would believe the left would be able to organize more than just protests, that there would be the Republicans, the Democrats AND the Progressives (or whatever the name it would have)...

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (12 children)

I volunteered for Bernie Sanders. His two runs for President (along with a long career) are probably as close as you can find to what a modern progressive party would look like.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=n00000528

He raised a lot of money, had very large rallies, and a lot of very passionate volunteers. But lost, and there’s two reasons why.

  1. First past the post spoiler effect - Bernie had to run as a Democrat within the Democratic Party primary system. If he had run as progressive or democratic socialist he would have split the democratic vote. In a first past the post system Duverger’s Law mathematically guarantees 2 party rule.

Any progressive alternative would split the democratic vote, and ensure that, at least for a while, the republicans would win every election. You can see on Lemmy and Reddit and all other kinds of social media the amount of anger and infighting this causes on the left. This is a strong disincentive for anyone to start an alternative party.

  1. The donor class - the Democratic Party is largely funded by big money donors. Big money donors have a lot of money because of how things are currently arranged. If the way the country works today has made you fabulously wealthy, even if that means a lot of people suffer, you tell yourself “they suffer because they don’t work hard like me” and want things to stay the way they are. So you donate to both parties to control them and make sure that whatever particular apple cart you’ve cornered doesn’t get overturned.

Every problem the American people face is a profit generator for some fuck face. Rent too high, some landlord is enjoying record profits. Can’t afford medicine, some pharmacy CEO is buying their third yacht. Those people have enough money to buy politicians, ads, political parties, media networks, social media companies, etc. They aren’t just going to sit back and let you fuck up their money making machine, they will deploy those assets against anyone that threatens the status quo.

Here’s a particularly egregious example coming from MSNBC during Bernie’s last run when his reforms threatened their wealth https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/chris-matthews-bernie-sanders-public-executions-949802/

So that’s what any progressive party is up against. The mathematical certainty that they would lose until they could unseat the current Democratic Party, something that would take some number of election cycles. The donor class wanting to thwart any change. And let’s say they do overcome both of those things. That party then becomes the thing the donors try to buy next. Your party starts with high minded ideals but one by one the members of your party get big paydays from the billionaires and suddenly they want to soften this reform and maybe hold off on that reform and… oh look they are holding the exact same positions as the current Democratic Party. Because those positions are the positions of the people that own the party, and they will happily buy another.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago

Campaigning in the US relies heavily on money from wealthy investors to get off the ground. Meaning, any new party that wants to get going needs approval from the wealthy to do so.

Additionally, a huge percentage of the population pays no attention to politics at all, just closing their eyes to the whole election and either not voting, or voting for the party they've always voted for every time, so even if your party managed to get some attention, it'd just be another 3rd party further fracturing what small portion of the population risks voting outside the 2 party system as it is.

In other to have a shot at winning, you'd need to somehow make enough money to afford competing with the 2 established parties for screen time, which would mean major corporate backing that would only happen if they liked your policies.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

/genuine question, asides from the obvious of republicans adopting left policy, what would have to happen for another party switch to occur?

like, i know it happened once. wondering what circumstances and context brought that about and if that’s even a realistic framing to think about today’s world?

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There is also the Whig party for reference. They were one of the two parties until they refused to take a meaningful stance on slavery. They were the 'bipartisanship states rights solves it' party versus the 'pro-slavery' party.

There is no longer a Whig party and the slavery party went to war over a decade or so after the anti slavery parry formed.

So there's that alternative to Party switch.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I agree. I think we're at the stage where the Democrats are the Whig party. They aren't going to change, they need to be replaced with a true progressive party.

Assuming that we continue to be as much of a democracy as we were, now might be the time for that replacement to happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments