163
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
163 points (93.6% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15914 readers
15 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
European lefty here with some questions for the anti-both crowd.
With the FPTP voting system, aren't you limited to a binary choice between Trump and Biden? I agree that Biden has been shamefully complicit in the Palestinian genocide (among broken campaign promises and rightful health concerns), though I would imagine that "finish the job" Trump would be a more destructive choice. Would it not be marginally better to have Biden in office?
I don't hold Biden in the view of someone who is a champion of environmentalism or global peace, but an anti-NATO, anti-climate science, fraudster surely would be more likely to implement harmful changes that are difficult to reverse versus a generic neoliberal?
Of course, this is through the perspective of your current voting system; ideally you would have third-party options that you could realistically elect that are not fronted by genocide supporters. In a case where you had the option for ranked choice or approval voting, who would your ideal party or candidate be?
(Not a troll/criticism post - genuinely curious about the spectrum of American politics coming into the election!)
This again. You may be genuinely asking, but we get someone stumbling in here every day at the moment looking to repeat the same 'lesser evils' voting argument ad infinitum, so I hope you'll understand that I'm going to try to outline some of thr major points in brief and am not interested in a protracted debate about them.
The point that is nearly always ignored is that for the most part people don't actually care if someone wants to vote for Biden for whatever reason, but the amount of time people dedicate to this argument and electoral politics in general would be better spent doing literally anything else. Organising, mutual aid, protest, 'lawfare', community defense, whatever.
Perhaps most important is that the parameters of bourgeois electoral politics are set to ensure that no option outside of ruling class interests can be achieved. The spectacle of the campaigns are release valve for societal pressure, a way to sap and distract the energy of potential activists into something safe for the status quo.
And if we are going to engage with electoral politics...
On 'lesser evil' voting...
The mantra that is always repeated is that the lesser evil is always the tactical choice, that someone else 'would be worse' but that isn't necessarily the case, especially if you don't think electoral politics is the primary way to exercise power.
If you feel that one issue is most important - the genocide in Gaza for example - and the lesser evil candidate is currently doing it, without any possibility of policy change, then any other candidate offers at least the potential for change. A possibility of change is logically better than the certainty of none.
One could argue that in a political duopoly where both parties serve the same interest, they also each serve a specific purpose. With the further right party making regressive change and then the 'lesser evil' party protecting and solidifying those gains. Viewed like this, voting for the 'lesser evil' party isn't necessarily the most tactical choice. When the 'lesser evil' party commits atrocities or cements regressive policy there's less push back from the populace because their supporters excuse it rather than oppose it. Take the reaction to Biden's continuation of internment camps on the border for example; was there more opposition when Trump was doing it or Biden? Or for a UK example, the fact that both Labour and Tory politicians have said that only Labour has the 'good will' and 'credibility' to enact NHS reform (meaning deeply unpopular privatisation). It's too unpopular for the 'more evil' party to do openly, so the 'lesser evil' party will have to do it under false pretenses.
Great explanation - thank you for re-explaining it to another stranger who's wandered in here. You've explained it well as did another - it's moreso the case that the optics of Trump Vs. Biden or Rep Vs. Dem looks like a great difference to an outsider, when in reality they're upholding each other. And totally agreed on the participation of the broken system Vs. useful organisation, makes sense why you'd disregard the election.