this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
17 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10186 readers
326 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While BLM is certainly within their right to ask for this, I think it'd be pointless to do it. It's done. Kamala Harris is the nominee.
To me, this is once again, the left fighting the left. And yes, the Democratic Party in this country, is considered part of the left, even if it's not as left as some of you you'd like. Maybe BLM and other groups who feel the same, should focus that energy on fighting MAGA and Trump. Only one of the two major parties has at least some interest in racial justice and equality. And it sure as hell ain't the Republicans. Especially not these days.
I'm not saying Democrats are perfect. I'm not saying Kamala Harris is perfect. But I'd much, much, much, much rather have her and Walz and Democrats across the land in control. And trying to fight fights within the big tent that have already been settled isn't the way to do it.
Is there a method where BLM could publicly raise concerns about the Democrats' process that you wouldn't characterize as 'the left fighting the left'?
To be somewhat contrarian, what advantage is there in BLM raising these concerns and making this demand? What does it do, in this election cycle, to advance their agenda?
Wait until the fascists don't win the election? Right now that makes the most difference, and then later we can hold Harris and the Democrats to be better.
How would we hold them to be better, once they are in office? I have the feeling you would probably not support impeaching them over not being far enough to the Left, so I am interested in what routes you think are available?
To be clear, I don't want a snap primary, I am just interested in if you actually have an answer to this, because otherwise it would have been more honest to just say, "shut up I don't care" than pretend that pre-election is not the time to affect the party platform (which it has always been).
This was always my biggest concern about voting Democrat in the coming election. I've since been convinced I should regardless – a realization of how little impact focusing on the presidency actually has was what changed my mind – but I could've been swayed far sooner if someone had provided me with a more reliable way to keep the DNC accountable back then.
To me, the Democrat party is failure by any standard bar the low one of "better than Republicans," and that's pathetic. I can't be excited for any candidate they field unless I can be given good reason to finally trust them. And considering their sordid history, that's gonna take a lot.
What's sad is that this is a big part of what primaries are supposed to do, by showing popular support for candidates that the party leadership doesn't want in charge. If they think that e.g. Medicare for All is going to get a candidate nominated in that or the next primary who they don't want, it's a heavy encouragement to adopt that position into their preferred candidates' platforms, to eliminate that point against them.
Obama won after absolutely thrashing Hillary in the 2008 primaries, much to the chagrin of the DNC who refused to budge on any policy positions. In 2016 Bernie might very well have won, but little did anyone know Hillary's campaign had been in charge of the DNC for months, using the victory fund for herself and controlling all DNC communications, virtually eliminating any chance for Bernie to be competitive. In 2020, Sanders was once again making a strong showing, leading Biden in delegates, and in order to prevent a contested convention with Sanders having a big lead, all the other DNC-approved candidates coordinated to drop out the day before Super Tuesday, and endorsed Biden as a hail mary to save his campaign. (Here's 538 saying that was why, in case you distrust HuffPost)
Until the party is fully taken over by progressives (or better), it's going to be a corporate-funded party of feckless, milquetoast neoliberals. But I think that an objective assessment shows that we are making strong inroads into the party. Biden dropping out is absolutely insane, and would not have happened without the wonderful and widespread public condemnation and protests against his actions around Gaza. Likewise, we would probably have a different VP pick than Walz if not for the fear that younger, more progressive voters are instilling in the party leadership, of sticking to their unpopular policy positions.
Is it entirely possible that Harris and Walz will make no real move Leftwards? Absolutely.
But they are the new ballot because the DNC had to at least create the impression that they might, which is a marked departure from "Have the protests changed your view on Israel?" "No." Biden.
If the question is, "do I think the DNC leaders will ever shift Left because it's what their base wants?" then absolutely no.
But if the question is if they can be forcefully dragged Leftwards as they attempt to avoid a Left-wing (or at least progressive) takeover of the party, I think 100% yes.