this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
158 points (95.4% liked)

A Comm for Historymemes

2251 readers
1566 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Lemmy.world rules.

Banner courtesy of @[email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
158
The origins of the Republican party (lemm.ee)
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, there were people who were anti-slavery for moral reasons.

Let's not forget that there were plenty of people who thought that Africans were inferior who wanted slavery ended for economic reasons.

A slaveowner would rent out his slaves to do work for less money than any free man. Many slaveowners would bring skilled workers over from Europe and pay them for their jobs, and also to train some slaves. After the master carpenter moved on, the slaveowner had a dozen carpenters on his plantation. When they weren't working for him, he'd rent them out. That meant that it was impossible for any local carpenters to earn a living.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

Which is why I expect to see unions fighting for prison labor reform.

[–] [email protected] 87 points 3 days ago

[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Republican party pledged to fight the “twin relics of barbarism”: slavery and polygamy

Ironic that Mormons now overwhelmingly vote Republican

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

What beef did they have with polygamy?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Jeebus

Generally speaking it's also not wise to have polygamy (as opposed to polyamory) in cultures without a lot of young males dying. Tends to lead to a bunch of horny and angry incels.

The Mormons had it strictly because Mormonism is a cult that was designed for Joseph Smith to get child "brides."

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What's savery

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

Also called Umami, it's one of the 5 basic flavors, along with salty, bitter, sweet, and sour.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Savory slavery

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Savery is bad

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I disagree, it's my favorite of the taste sensations

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Though umami is a close second

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago

"Wrong, I deserve to own other human beings!"

-Pieces of shit

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago (3 children)

And clowns today will tell you that a third party is doomed to fail because of the scawy two party system and first past the post.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

FPTP ultimately results in a two-party system. That doesn't mean it's a two-party system 100% of the time. If a party truly screws up, that party can die and be replaced. You'll still end up with two parties for the vast majority of the elections.

And that's exactly what happened. Reality lines up with the math.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah that's what I'm trying to say. It's what I call the two-party fallacy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Where the fallacy

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The idea that just because FPTP mathematically guarantees a two-party system third parties can never succeed under it, usually invoked to get out of having to consider making a third party as a viable solution to the chokehold the establishment has on American politics and more recently Trumpian fascism.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The math says I can't fly, so I discount that as an escape route.

I'm serious. 30% of voters self identify as Republicans. 30% more as Democrats. These people aren't thinking. They vote their party because daddy voted that party. Just look at how few people change their party affiliation. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/04/voters-rarely-switch-parties-but-recent-shifts-further-educational-racial-divergence/

So any 3rd party would have to capture literally everyone else to be viable. And that's from both extreme ends of the spectrum as well as the middle. Those people who actually think about politics and consider who is running and might change.

It's literally impossible. You'd have more luck doing what the tea party did. Get a chunk of people then invade the Republican party.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The math says I can't fly, so I discount that as an escape route.

As you literally said yourself, third parties can still succeed in a two-party system if they can cannibalize one of the two major parties.

These people aren't thinking. They vote their party because daddy voted that party. Just look at how few people change their party affiliation.

Huh? The article says more than 10% changed party affiliation in less than two years. That's not "few", that's a lot. It's proof people are, to some extent, thinking about their party affiliation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But the third party can't win, that's my point.

Maybe I don't understand, but I feel like the tea party wasted years being outside the Republicans. Once they got inside they were able to change things. So why follow in their failures? Why not jump right to their success?

10% is very low, is my point.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe I don't understand, but I feel like the tea party wasted years being outside the Republicans. Once they got inside they were able to change things. So why follow in their failures? Why not jump right to their success?

The tea party had two advantages that the progressive movement doesn't. First is a party leadership that knew it was floundering and was willing to let the public have the final verdict on the candidates they wanted (for more notice the difference between how the GOP treated Trump vs how the DNC treated and still treats Bernie). Second is billionaire money, lots of billionaire money. The progressive movement has a much harder task ahead of it than the tea party did, so expecting the same methods to work doesn't make sense. I'll copy part of my reply to someone else in this thread:

If that was the only problem then maybe, but the issue is the triple whammy of Dem leadership: Their economic policy is horrible, they lack the spine to do much of anything and they'll fight you to the death if you try to change that. Any one—or even two—of these alone would've been solvable, but with all three it's easier to just start from scratch. The the pre-existent party apparatus and brand recognition are very attractive, but the price you'll pay is a bunch of gerontocrats who will keep demanding concessions so they keep you in the party and giving absolutely nothing in return, which among other things will lose you legitimacy with your base (see: Bernie and AOC) while dampening the speed of expansion of both your political base and footprint within the party. Hell, if they're successful they just might be able to take enough of you to their side to permanently cripple your movement.

I've actually seen someone here argue that the left's tea party happened in 2016 with Bernie's candidacy in the primary and appearance of The Squad, and that it simply didn't take hold for a number of reasons.

10% is very low, is my point.

In two years? No it's not. For example if we assume that's a constant rate that'd be more than a quarter of the whole party leaving in six years. And that's with only the political establishment; actually make people's lives better and you should be looking at a lot more than 10% every two years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's no reason to assume it's a constant rate. 10% during a time of absolute turmoil. That seems low to me. How many times have you changed your political leanings in your life? For me it was two changes in 25 years of voting. But let's say we can swing that ten percent every two years. We'll be ready to win something in 2033? We need to be faster.

And your point about tea party funding just means a progressive party would have even less success, wouldn't it?

I still think getting progressive candidates into low level positions within the Dems is a quickly achievable goal. Next year even. Then we push mid level and up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

There's no reason to assume it's a constant rate. 10% during a time of absolute turmoil.

Why would a time of absolute turmoil mean people would switch parties more? Democrats wouldn't go to the GOP for competent pandemic management (remember that Biden won in part because of Trump's mishandling of the pandemic) and Republicans wouldn't even acknowledge the damn virus existed. If anything you'd expect both sides to stick to their side with small minorities switching sides (Democrats because of lockdowns and Republicans because of the pandemic).

We'll be ready to win something in 2033? We need to be faster.

If your point is that you need to be faster to stop fascism, then sorry to rain on your parade but electoral politics won't stop fascism either way. That ship sailed in 2024, or in 2020/2016 depending on how you look at it. If you're trying to organize a resistance you should be fighting for the hearts, minds and fucks to give of the people and pushing them into the streets; by the time you're going to the polls it'll all be over one way or the other.

And your point about tea party funding just means a progressive party would have even less success, wouldn't it?

No? The DNC will never give your progressive candidates funding anyway, by "giving absolutely nothing in return" I meant absolutely nothing. You get all the shackles and compromises and none of the benefits until your hostile takeover is complete in the far future (at which point you'll be already in concentration camps).

Next year even. Then we push mid level and up.

If you push one level per election you'll take at least those same six years before you're running for Congress so... uh... yeah.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The success of the Republican Party was only possible due to the fact that the Whigs had already crashed and burned, though.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

gestures broadly at Democrats

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Electorally crashed and burned. Though if you want to start replacing the current two-party system with a new two-party system, now would be a great time to get the gears moving.

[–] zarkanian 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Unfortunately, the person best positioned to do that, Bernie Sanders, is also the person least likely to do that. He's rallying people right now, which is good, but I have no idea what for, and I'm not sure he does, either.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but the Republicans had been active during the crashing and burning of the Whigs and that's why they were as successful as they were. The only reason the DNC isn't crashing and burning is because progressives don't want to challenge its increasingly flimsy claim to political legitimacy, but the necessary conditions are already there.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What issue is there, though, which would create a different coalition than the one already-present in the form of the Democratic Party?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I have to say: That is a really good question. It seems obvious, but it's probably the most productive I've seen around here in a while. Anyway for the actual answer:

Well there are quite a few, but they all go under the two broad categories of progressive policy and spine. Promise a strong leadership willing to fight for democracy, minorities and the working class*, with clear examples of what the Democrats didn't do that you plan to do and some real accomplishments to back these plans up, and you just might be able to get back the Obama coalition (which, to be clear, either has already collapsed or is collapsing; the modern Democrats don't get to claim it). Additionally make sure your policies focus on working class people and minorities** and actively fight for them—both in Congress and in the media—and there, you have yourself a new party with a new identity, a new platform and a new coalition capable of contesting elections in ways the current DNC can't.

*You need all three for this to work; in my view the DNC's mistake was mostly abandoning the working class, which destroyed the trifecta.

**The Democrats also target these people, but they mostly take them for granted with their main audience being white college educated liberals.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't really think that there's a clear coalition that's different enough to warrant the massive undertaking (and it is a massive undertaking) of trying to start a new party from scratch.

To go for a more progressive coalition - and make no mistake, a more progressive coalition is most popular with white college educated liberals, not minorities - does not seem to have a strong argument for itself considering that even as it stands now, most Dem voters want the party to either remain as is, or become more right-wing. Vile as that is.

In the media, as opposed to amongst political junkies like us, the Dems are already strongly associated with minority issues, and it is overwhelmingly not minorities which have failed to turn out in recent elections for Dems, but white middle and working class voters. Minorities, including in the most recent election, have been the staunchest supporters of the Dems and their most reliable voting bloc both in terms of turnout and in the terms of percentage of the vote gained. The Dems, for that matter, abandoned the working class in the 90s, it's true, but despite moving back towards a more pro-labor position in the 30 years since, has not meaningfully regained working-class votes. This is not purely a Dem issue - all across the developed world, pro-worker policies and worker support have been increasingly decoupled from electoral results.

The sad truth is that I don't know that there is a solution, in terms of forging or rebalancing current coalitions. IF, and I would like to emphasize that this is a very uncomfortable if, we still have free and fair elections in the coming years, I don't think that there is a different coalition possible that would put us in a place better, polling-wise, than the margin-of-error victories we've had the past decade-and-a-half.

The promise of strong leadership is a nice idea, but the issue is twofold here - first, that, if the primary issue is lack of strong leadership in a party, that is still generally less of a disadvantage than building the vast political apparatus in a country of our size for a nationally-viable party from scratch. Second, that guaranteeing strong leadership is nearly impossible - the ability to convince people you're a strong leader, and the ability to lead well, have very little overlap and very few ways to discern the difference until they're already in the driver's-seat and returning results of one sort or another.

Please don't mistake this as me saying that there cannot be a third-party movement which has some form of success. Both third-parties as a threat/negotiating tactics, and third-parties as a potential replacement for one of the two parties, are viable options to work at, at this point in time. But at the end of the day, I think the most viable option is to do what the Tea Party did to the GOP. Leadership is fragile. Easily replaced. Organized and motivated, beyond a simple voicing of grievances or enthusiasm for a single candidate, factions can take over and steer the parties to which they belong. But it requires patience and sustained activity, neither of which the lynchpin of non-moderate voters in the Dem Party, young voters, are good at. It took the Tea Party 6 years to overtake the old guard of the GOP, and even then it was a near-run thing. And only now, some 15 years later, is the takeover complete.

The Dems must move left - for the good of the country. But moving left will also not deliver the Dems electoral success. We can and should perform that takeover, but it also should be understood that a suddenly-progressive full-throated Dem Party will not result in a string of clear victories. The voters most in need of convincing, and most capable of being convinced, white working and middle-class voters (and increasingly, Hispanic voters of the same economic positions whose voting patterns become more similar with white voters every passing year), simply are not going to respond to sound left-wing economic policy. Nor, for that matter, will they respond much to sound or unsound right-wing economic policy. They only listen to promises, in the form of sound-bites, and only offer support or opposition insofar as the vagaries of their own economic situations allow for it - as filtered through their favorite news org, of course. Since news orgs get more views from FUD than rational analysis or positivity, and since people are notoriously bad at judging trends and time, it will almost always be a backlash against whatever policy was most recently implemented. And since it is much easier to tear things down and sabotage them than to implement them, this almost always benefits conservatives.

Until that fundamental civic detachment is fixed, no amount of new coalitions, candidates, or parties will bring the American left reliable electoral victory, beyond the fucking coin flip that the Dem Party offers now. And to spit out a lot of blood, sweat, and tears just to end up at Square 1 will disillusion a lot of the folks involved in it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Wow that's a lot.

To go for a more progressive coalition - and make no mistake, a more progressive coalition is most popular with white college educated liberals, not minorities - does not seem to have a strong argument for itself considering that even as it stands now, most Dem voters want the party to either remain as is, or become more right-wing. Vile as that is.

Are you sure about that? If that's true then American democracy is frankly hopeless, but the only evidence I've seen for these claims is Democrat leadership statements that I haven't seen backed up by evidence. From what I know progressive policies polled without being explicitly labeled as such tend to get broad support from all demographics and across the political spectrum. For example here's a poll about universal healthcare. That aside there's no need to restrict your sight to Dem voters when you're trying to build a new party; you can go after independents, non-voters and even Republicans if doing that won't dilute your platform.

In the media, as opposed to amongst political junkies like us, the Dems are already strongly associated with minority issues,

Among white people, not among minorities themselves. That's why I kept using the word "fight"; the DNC is pro-minorities but lacks the spine and economic policy to actually do any good for them.

and it is overwhelmingly not minorities which have failed to turn out in recent elections for Dems, but white middle and working class voters.

Many of those are dedicated Republican voters who should be excluded from the calculation entirely. If you'll go after those voters, it should be exclusively through media efforts without compromising on your core platform, because otherwise you'll repeat the same mistake as the Dems.

Minorities, including in the most recent election, have been the staunchest supporters of the Dems and their most reliable voting bloc both in terms of turnout and in the terms of percentage of the vote gained.

Yes, but Dem support among minorities has been falling and falling hard.

The promise of strong leadership is a nice idea, but the issue is twofold here - first, that, if the primary issue is lack of strong leadership in a party, that is still generally less of a disadvantage than building the vast political apparatus in a country of our size for a nationally-viable party from scratch.

If that was the only problem then maybe, but the issue is the triple whammy of Dem leadership: Their economic policy is horrible, they lack the spine to do much of anything and they'll fight you to the death if you try to change that. Any one—or even two—of these alone would've been solvable, but with all three it's easier to just start from scratch. The the pre-existent party apparatus and brand recognition are very attractive, but the price you'll pay is a bunch of gerontocrats who will keep demanding concessions so they keep you in the party and giving absolutely nothing in return, which among other things will lose you legitimacy with your base (see: Bernie and AOC) while dampening the speed of expansion of both your political base and footprint within the party. Hell, if they're successful they just might be able to take enough of you to their side to permanently cripple your movement.

Second, that guaranteeing strong leadership is nearly impossible - the ability to convince people you're a strong leader, and the ability to lead well, have very little overlap and very few ways to discern the difference until they're already in the driver's-seat and returning results of one sort or another.

It's very easy to provide stronger leadership than the DNC. I mean they passed that godawful budget how many days ago? Just not playing yourself in favor of the enemy is enough for a start, and most sane people should be able to guarantee that. Also you should be producing results through the process of building up your base since you won't win the whole government all at once. That's what I meant by saying that trying to take over the DNC will lose you legitimacy with your base; the process of achieving national recognition should give you enough of a track record for people to know what kind of operation you're running.

Aaand I hit the character limit so I'll reply to myself with the rest of this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Are you sure about that? If that’s true then American democracy is frankly hopeless, but the only evidence I’ve seen for these claims is Democrat leadership statements that I haven’t seen backed up by evidence.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/656636/democrats-favor-party-moderation-past.aspx

From what I know progressive policies polled without being explicitly labeled as such tend to get broad support from all demographics and across the political spectrum. For example here’s a poll about universal healthcare.

Which should point out how useless polling on policy is for predicting electoral support. People will say they support a policy, but the moment it's actually proposed, find some little detail to justify to themselves why they shouldn't support it when it could actually happen.

Sadly, this is why party support is far more useful for predicting electoral results. Including of ballot initiatives.

That aside there’s no need to restrict your sight to Dem voters when you’re trying to build a new party; you can go after independents, non-voters and even Republicans if doing that won’t dilute your platform.

Dems form the leftmost demographic of the American electorate. And polls of independents continually and repeatedly confirm that.

You're not going to get better numbers for progressive policy looking outside of the Dem Party. If your view is that a progressive party is the way forward, and can attract a large number of people, to the point of challenging the current two-party system, you have to square that with the facts, which would seem difficult.

Among white people, not among minorities themselves.

Would you be open to evidence challenging this?

Many of those are dedicated Republican voters who should be excluded from the calculation entirely. If you’ll go after those voters, it should be exclusively through media efforts without compromising on your core platform, because otherwise you’ll repeat the same mistake as the Dems.

I'm not saying we should 'go after' those voters. I'm saying those are primarily the votes the Dems have lost in the past ~30 years.

Yes, but Dem support among minorities has been falling and falling hard.

Yet as pointed out by your own source, 2020 had some of the strongest Black support on record for the Dems. You point to a systemic problem inherent in the basis of the party itself. If so, we should see a decline from whenever you think is most appropriate to peg the main change at; instead, we see a sharp drop without movement towards the problems you point as plaguing the party (correctly point at as plaguing, in my opinion, but incorrectly weighting their importance), and, indeed, despite moving left considerably in the past ten years thanks to the influence of Bernie and Berniecrats.

The the pre-existent party apparatus and brand recognition are very attractive, but the price you’ll pay is a bunch of gerontocrats who will keep demanding concessions so they keep you in the party and giving absolutely nothing in return, which among other things will lose you legitimacy with your base (see: Bernie and AOC) while dampening the speed of expansion of both your political base and footprint within the party.

Considering that the DSA rescinded its endorsement of AOC over [checks notes] acknowledging antisemitism, and that Bernie's reputation was strong for some 30 years, I'm gonna go and hazard that the machinations of The Party(tm) are not the primary culprit here.

It’s very easy to provide stronger leadership than the DNC. I mean they passed that godawful budget how many days ago? Just not playing yourself in favor of the enemy is enough for a start, and most sane people should be able to guarantee that.

God, if only getting and keeping sane people in leadership was that easy.

We absolutely need a massacre (metaphorically, for the sake of my personal FBI Agent) of Dem leadership, but whether starting from a clean slate entirely, or trying to revitalize the Dem Party, there's no way to guarantee good leadership will replace them.

Also you should be producing results through the process of building up your base since you won’t win the whole government all at once. That’s what I meant by saying that trying to take over the DNC will lose you legitimacy with your base; the process of achieving national recognition should give you enough of a track record for people to know what kind of operation you’re running.

That's not how Americans vote or how they recognize success, man. If it was, our situation would be considerably easier.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

https://news.gallup.com/poll/656636/democrats-favor-party-moderation-past.aspx

Okay what the shit democrats? That's definitely one hurdle to clear no matter what direction you do end up taking, but I believe (with no evidence at all other than faith in humanity and an appeal to Bernie) that it can be cleared.

Which should point out how useless polling on policy is for predicting electoral support. People will say they support a policy, but the moment it's actually proposed, find some little detail to justify to themselves why they shouldn't support it when it could actually happen.

That's... fair. However Bernie for example was able to get nationwide support—sometimes even from conservatives who would later vote for Trump—by running on progressive policy, so there's reason to think that policy not being linked to electoral success is at least partially an issue of how the DNC operates and campaigns rather than an inherent property of the American electorate. Also if you throw a wide enough net you should be able to make them vote for one policy even if they don't like the others, for example promising pro-Palestine policy for young college students and liberals, police reform for poor black people, union support for the working class, etc. Theoretically it should be possible to get around the culture war by promising to make real change in people's lives such that they'll reluctantly accept the other stuff.

Dems form the leftmost demographic of the American electorate. And polls of independents continually and repeatedly confirm that.

You're not going to get better numbers for progressive policy looking outside of the Dem Party. If your view is that a progressive party is the way forward, and can attract a large number of people, to the point of challenging the current two-party system, you have to square that with the facts, which would seem difficult.

Fair enough. However, by a simple appeal to the normal distribution it should be possible to count on some left-leaning independent support, since independents are more than just centrists. Most Democrats (which either want progressive policy or have nobody else to vote for) + left leaning independents + most minorities (think 2008 Obama numbers) should be enough for a coalition. The minorities part is important because minorities have significantly less turnout than white people and they all lean left.

Would you be open to evidence challenging this?

The poll I linked has options to filter by race, gender and age; I should've mentioned that. You can play around with it, but it seems to be black > hispanic > other > white in descending order of support, and all demographics show more than 50% support as of November 2023. Edit: If you have evidence showing otherwise then okay sure, but I think the poll's results are pretty clear-cut.

Yet as pointed out by your own source, 2020 had some of the strongest Black support on record for the Dems. You point to a systemic problem inherent in the basis of the party itself. If so, we should see a decline from whenever you think is most appropriate to peg the main change at; instead, we see a sharp drop without movement towards the problems you point as plaguing the party (correctly point at as plaguing, in my opinion, but incorrectly weighting their importance), and, indeed,

I'd peg the main change at Obama for building the Obama coalition under his platform for hope and change, which then proceeded to slowly disintegrate. 2020 was an outlier because Biden to an extent appropriated some of the policies that got Obama elected and Bernie widespread support, and partly because Trump fucked up his handling of Covid so hard. Black people are also the most pro-Democrat demographic in the country for historical reasons. I can't for the life of me find voting data for minorities in general by election, or for black people, but I did find this for Hispanics: https://www.gzeromedia.com/gzero-north/graphic-truth-latino-voters-and-votes-since-1980.

despite moving left considerably in the past ten years thanks to the influence of Bernie and Berniecrats.

The party didn't move left. They dabbled in leftwing politics once in 2020 (which won them the election) and that's it; the general party platform has either mostly stayed the same or shifted to the right depending on the issue (see: most lethal military in the world).

Continues below.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

My stamina wrt this discussion has run out, but I want to thank you for the quality and civil debate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Considering that the DSA rescinded its endorsement of AOC over [checks notes] acknowledging antisemitism, and that Bernie's reputation was strong for some 30 years, I'm gonna go and hazard that the machinations of The Party(tm) are not the primary culprit here.

I looked up the AOC bit and it seems it was for meeting with Zionist lobbyists and voting for Zionist bills in the House. You might disagree with the decision, but these are very valid reasons to rescind an endorsement. Supporting Israel's right to exist is a dealbreaker on its own, (edit:) and exactly what I was talking about. I very much doubt AOC would've supported these bills had she been with the DSA rather than the DNC.

We absolutely need a massacre (metaphorically, for the sake of my personal FBI Agent) of Dem leadership, but whether starting from a clean slate entirely, or trying to revitalize the Dem Party, there's no way to guarantee good leadership will replace them.

Again, the standard we’re working with isn’t “good”; it’s “not absolutely horrible and spineless”. At least at the start you can guarantee that the leadership won’t be absolutely horrible and spineless, because that leadership is in part literally you.

Also note that when I say strong leadership I don’t necessarily mean one guy or a few guys coming to save the common man from the woes of fascism; this leadership can just as easily be a coalition of grassroots organizations or any other form of organized resistance.

That's not how Americans vote or how they recognize success, man. If it was, our situation would be considerably easier.

It’s how the core activist base recognizes success. Those will then spread your ideas among low and medium-information voters.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Please don't mistake this as me saying that there cannot be a third-party movement which has some form of success. Both third-parties as a threat/negotiating tactics, and third-parties as a potential replacement for one of the two parties, are viable options to work at, at this point in time. But at the end of the day, I think the most viable option is to do what the Tea Party did to the GOP. Leadership is fragile. Easily replaced. Organized and motivated, beyond a simple voicing of grievances or enthusiasm for a single candidate, factions can take over and steer the parties to which they belong. But it requires patience and sustained activity, neither of which the lynchpin of non-moderate voters in the Dem Party, young voters, are good at. It took the Tea Party 6 years to overtake the old guard of the GOP, and even then it was a near-run thing. And only now, some 15 years later, is the takeover complete.

An internal takeover—if possible—would be ideal, yes. However, the reason the Tea Party was so successful was because the GOP was open to change and the Tea Party had billionaire money behind them. Taking over a party that's hostile to change without near-infinite money is a whole different beast. The inability of young voters to patiently and sustainably act themselves out of a paper bag is also a big problem, but I'd say part of that is lack of enthusiasm with the political system. Rather than the Tea Party I'll talk MAGA because frankly I was way too young to know anything politics during the age of the tea party. The left's equivalent of Trump is/was Bernie, but let's face it: Is Bernie far to the left as Trump is far to the right? Bernie's tendency to fall in with the establishment heavily contrasts with Trump's willingness to say screw the establishment and say whatever he wants about whoever he wants. Now if I'm wrong and young voters are indeed incapable of patient and sustained activity even with strong leadership (which Bernie has been trying to be but is not), then America is screwed either way because moderates can't fight fascism.

They only listen to promises, in the form of sound-bites, and only offer support or opposition insofar as the vagaries of their own economic situations allow for it - as filtered through their favorite news org, of course.

Very true, so make those promises. Say you'll make healthcare and energy dirt cheap, tax the rich and give that money to the poor and middle class, expand social welfare, make it so people won't need expensive cars to get around, etc etc. The right will hate your guts for it, but giving a shit about what the right thinks is a recipe for failure.

Until that fundamental civic detachment is fixed, no amount of new coalitions, candidates, or parties will bring the American left reliable electoral victory, beyond the fucking coin flip that the Dem Party offers now. And to spit out a lot of blood, sweat, and tears just to end up at Square 1 will disillusion a lot of the folks involved in it.

Yeah absolutely. I guess my fundamental assumption going into this is that civic detachment can be fixed by the knowledge that politics is important and can do good things for you rather than being a slew of lesser evils who promise to screw you slightly less than the other guy. I mean it works the other way so maybe?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

An internal takeover—if possible—would be ideal, yes. However, the reason the Tea Party was so successful was because the GOP was open to change and the Tea Party had billionaire money behind them.

"the GOP was open to change"

I hear this line all the goddamn time, but it was just not fucking so. It was forced to accede to change by large amounts of its base demonstrating electoral activity, both in primaries and in the general, despite a desire to limit the radicals of their base from influence.

The billionaire money is correct, though.

Rather than the Tea Party I’ll talk MAGA because frankly I was way too young to know anything politics during the age of the tea party. The left’s equivalent of Trump is/was Bernie, but let’s face it: Is Bernie far to the left as Trump is far to the right?

Their respective distances measured relative to the average American voter? Yes.

Bernie’s tendency to fall in with the establishment heavily contrasts with Trump’s willingness to say screw the establishment and say whatever he wants about whoever he wants.

what

Christ, man, do not tell me that's what you think strong leadership is.

Now if I’m wrong and young voters are indeed incapable of patient and sustained activity even with strong leadership (which Bernie has been trying to be but is not), then America is screwed either way because moderates can’t fight fascism.

Looking for a leader to save us is exactly why we're in this fucking mess, man.

Very true, so make those promises. Say you’ll make healthcare and energy dirt cheap, tax the rich and give that money to the poor and middle class, expand social welfare, make it so people won’t need expensive cars to get around, etc etc. The right will hate your guts for it, but giving a shit about what the right thinks is a recipe for failure.

Okay, the next step is - you're asked 'how?'

And unlike the GOP base, the Dem base is not satisfied with "It'll work, trust me."

You're left with "Losing your base who thinks you're a liar and/or a shitwit" or "Losing the swing voters who will get bored and tune out of any real explanation that's solid, or else find the soundbite against it more compelling than that egghead stuff".

Yeah absolutely. I guess my fundamental assumption going into this is that civic detachment can be fixed by the knowledge that politics is important and can do good things for you rather than being a slew of lesser evils who promise to screw you slightly less than the other guy. I mean it works the other way so maybe?

The only way that works is by immense education on civic matters. The idea that the Dems just forgot to lie about being good is absurd. Many of the left-wing detractors on Lemmy, where the average commenter is more politically informed than the average voter couldn't name jack fucking shit about the Dem platform in 2024.

Narratives are more powerful than facts, and certainly more powerful than party platforms.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I hear this line all the goddamn time, but it was just not fucking so. It was forced to accede to change by large amounts of its base demonstrating electoral activity, both in primaries and in the general, despite a desire to limit the radicals of their base from influence.

I mean they had their thumb on the primary a lot less than the DNC, at least. That's why Trump made it to the general in 2016 rather than the GOP's preferred candidate.

Their respective distances measured relative to the average American voter? Yes.

Distance from the center is irrelevant; the relevant quality here is position on the absolute left-right scale, with socialism/anarchy on one end and fascism on the other (the center does not exist in this view, as that is inherently relative). And I have to say, Trump is a lot more fascist than Bernie is anarchist. That's the problem here; Trump fought with his political establishment and won, while Bernie and the rest of the American left didn't.

Christ, man, do not tell me that's what you think strong leadership is.

Yes and no. Trump is the ultimate representation of the base desires of his constituents, a man who "grabs them by the pussy", calls Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals and publicly calls for a ban on Muslims. He also says whatever the fuck he wants—which happens to be what his constituents want to hear—whenever the fuck he wants, something something quite part out loud. These are traits of strong leadership that Trump possesses and nobody on the left does. Taken out of the general insanity of Trump, they'd be willingness to be radical and stand up for your principles. Of course it's not like Trump possesses these qualities; he's just a narcissist, but this and that are different problems.

Okay, the next step is - you're asked 'how?'

A public option (or single payer healthcare, depending on how radical you want to go), investment in renewables, tax laws and funding the IRS, investing in public transportation (point to NYC or similar for an example of that in action), respectively. The rationale behind a lot of leftwing policies is fundamentally very simple; the complexity comes from the execution, which low-information voters don't care about and high-information voters will listen to long explanations for.

The idea that the Dems just forgot to lie about being good is absurd.

They didn't; they simply lost the option to even lie about being good, because being good is antithetical to the desires of their donors.

Many of the left-wing detractors on Lemmy, where the average commenter is more politically informed than the average voter couldn't name jack fucking shit about the Dem platform in 2024.

That's because the Dem platform was just that bad. The Dems treated their own platform as irrelevant and almost completely focused on the democracy stuff without any action to back it up. The average Lemmy left-wing detractor could name the main points of the GOP platform, because the GOP is both better at building narratives and actually cares about their (absolutely horrible, to be clear) platform.

[–] agamemnonymous 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

We can start talking broadly about third parties in the general election when more of them start winning local and state elections. How many progressives are in Congress? State Governors? State Congress? I've checked, it's not a lot. When that number gets much bigger, people will take them more seriously and consider them for higher office. This Jill Stein coming out of the woodwork every 4 years nonsense ain't it.

[–] AlligatorBlizzard 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What kind of cicada is Jill Stein?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

!We can start talking broadly about third parties in the general election when more of them start winning local and state elections.

Yeah that's true. My remark extends to those elections as well, not just the presidential election. If there's an effort by third parties to win any of those elections (edit: beyond business as usual), I definitely haven't heard of it.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago

Since then it looks like the Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Whigs.

Get in loser, we're starting a new party