this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
418 points (83.9% liked)

Comic Strips

12679 readers
4207 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 72 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (23 children)

So I think a lot of folks don't know the context this comic was written in and how misleading the message is.

This is an attack comic on a recently created 3rd party, the Forward party, created by Andrew Yang. There are several pillars to this party's mission, such as UBI and Campaign finance reform, but the core of the party is the ranked choice vote.

If you aren't familiar with ranked choice vote, Here is a great video explanation , but essentially it gives voters the ability to vote for multiple candidates and removing the entire "voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away" situation. If the forward party is successful to getting this passed in every part of our government, it would fully upend the two party system.

This comic is pointing at Andrew Yangs slogan in his 2020 run for president as well as for the forward party- "not left, not right, forward". What he is trying to do is tap into the discontent found in a majority of Americans. Most voters would like to see choices beyond Dems and the GOP and these voters are all across the political spectrum.

Someone like my father, a former Republican who is disillusioned with the party but is still heavily free market, and myself who believes more in regulation and strong institutions both agree on the issue of RCV because we are in the same boat of feeling like we aren't actually represented in our government.

I'd say this comic is a perfect example of "if you ignore the details of a philosophy and redefine it's rhetoric, you can make it stand for anything you want".

TL;Dr this comic is trying to convince you that the Forward party is the exact opposite of what it really is by ignoring any nuance.

Edit: Here is a video explaining the positions of the forward party. Keep a critical eye while watching it as I'm not trying to sell you on the party, but at least for you to be aware of it's existence.

[–] Schmoo 11 points 4 days ago (9 children)

The comic isn't ignoring the details or redefining the Forward Party's rhetoric at all. The message, which I agree with, is that the party's platform doesn't promise any fundamental change to the underlying system, but rather is intended to address glaring problems that represent a risk to the longevity of the system.

It's a bit like the new deal, which was intended to take the steam out of the US labor movement (and succeeded). The goal, ultimately, is the short-term appeasement of those who have been disillusioned with the current system in order to preserve the greater status quo (capitalism).

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 4 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Knowing basically nothing about anything that's relevant here, so pardon any ignorance, but it does sound to me like anything that moves the US towards a true multi-party system would be a pretty fundamental change?

[–] Schmoo 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

To our democracy, sure, but not to our economic system. As long as our economic system is capitalist our democracy will always be beholden to the ultra rich, even if it is multi-party. Campaign finance reform is good, but nowhere near enough to eliminate the influence of capital on the political process.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm not so sure. I'm from a multi-party democracy, and while the ultra-rich (or, well, mega-rich I suppose - the US's ultra-rich are at a different level I think) certainly have their interests catered to, I feel like on balance the scales are tipped to their benefit to a way smaller extent, largely thanks to the multi-party system.

[–] Schmoo 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What country? Virtually every liberal democracy is currently experiencing a far-right resurgence right now, with similar themes of austerity and lower taxes on the rich. Multiparty democracies, especially those with parliamentary systems, have greater immunity, but they're all suffering from the same disease because they have the same foundational flaws.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In the EU, but my point is that the scale is way different. I'm in the Netherlands, and the far-right resurgence here is still being kept in check to some extent by the other parties. I shudder to think what would happen if they could do what they want just because they're the largest, but they can't.

[–] Schmoo 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Netherlands has extra immunity beyond just the political system by way of a strong social safety net as well. Fascism thrives on poverty and resentment. But keep in mind, the Netherlands is practically the perfect example of social democracy and yet still the far-right is able to find a foothold to power. The Netherlands does a great job treating the symptoms of capitalism, but the foundations can still rot.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 1 points 3 days ago

Agreed, although I'd posit that we were able to get the strong social safety thanks in large part to the multi-party democracy. But otherwise, yes, agreed on all counts.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)