The dead heat of this race is, in part, due to this election cycle offering the choice between the party of genocide and the party of fascism. This is no choice at all. It is part of the formula that has led to our worsening social crisis. For decades we have faced exactly this same calculus at the ballot box: choose the lesser evil candidate to stave off much worse outcomes for working and oppressed peoples. And yet, conditions continue to worsen each cycle. This is a process that has been slowly moving all of us toward fascism, climate crisis, and genocide. Working within these options does not change that trajectory. Only by working outside and against them can we alter our course.
And yet, conditions continue to worsen each cycle.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/
The last time US emissions were this low was in 1987.
Tell me, what happened in 2008 that might have made it different from 1980-2008, and started moving it in that other direction?
What purpose would a person who's deeply concerned about the climate crisis have, for pretending that choosing between the party of the IRA, and the party of Trump, is no choice at all? That seems like a weird thing to say, for someone who's incredibly concerned about climate emissions.
And yet, conditions continue to worsen each cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate#Growth_and_Subsequent_Decline
The last time the incarceration rate was this low was 1990.
Tell me, what happened in 2008 that might have started it going down from its peak in that year?
You want change outside that ballot box. That's great. It's needed. We have to. Neither of those numbers, or some of the others I could dig out if I wanted to further belabor the point, are anywhere near as low as they need to be.
But it's very weird that you claim to care a lot about the climate, genocide, all these critical issues, but you're spreading around this stuff that is offering this false choice between voting and doing something else.
It's not an either-or situation. You can vote to preserve the right to protest, the right to a free media, the right for you and I to exist on Lemmy without it being shut down because it's not an approved conservative-friendly social media, and the continuation of the legal structures that have gotten us our current little bit of gain against the climate apocalypse. And then you can also pursue the direct mechanisms outside of politics which will get them to where they actually need to be.
Or, you could say that it's fine with you if all of that gets blown up, we have several years more that we can't spare of unrestrained climate suicide, and then after that, we can try to use non-electoral action to make a change, at that point.
Fighting for change isn't working very well right now. As the article points out, the bad guys are still winning. Why would it suddenly start working better, if you let someone come into office who wants to make it 10 times harder and throw anyone and everyone in prison who tries to resist the system in any capacity?
Why throw away one of your bullets in the arsenal, just because you have other ones that you also need?