The first clue that Platner was a shitty person wasn’t his military service or his Blackwater stint or his tattoo or the sexual assault stuff, it was that he ran for high office in the US government under one of America’s two mainstream parties. That’s damning in and of itself.
I said this on Twitter today and some DSA guy told me the best way to make changes in US politics is to work within the Democratic Party to elect left-wing candidates and advance progressive agendas.
I said, “You guys have been trying that for ten years with nothing to show for it.”
I mean, how much longer is it going to take before people admit that the “change the party from within” strategy isn’t working? Do you want another twenty years? Another fifty? Do you need to spend the next century watching a handful of vaguely progressive imperialists getting elected to Congress and then getting primaried out by opponents with mountains of special interest funding before you admit that you’re not making any meaningful gains? Our planet could be lifeless before then.
The Bernie Sanders “revolution” was ten years ago. Large factions of the American left took up his call to take over the Democratic Party using primary elections throughout the nation, and ever since then it’s been a two-steps-forward, two-steps-back addition of zeros. The people never got President Bernie, and the few progressive gains made on Capitol Hill were either kicked out like Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman or went full pro-establishment like John Fetterman. The few who stuck around have turned out to be perpetually disappointing empire managers like AOC, who know how to straddle the line between left-wing lip service and status quo swamp monster.
I'm not advocating for a particular party, I'm telling you both branches of the monoparty work for the same corporate interests. Last presidential election, there was a candidate running under Workers' Party, with a solid platform, and it's quite interesting the liberal branch of the corporate party sued and won to keep her off the ballot, but only in swing states. The candidates D or R torpedo could be evaluated. A platform is great, but a platform with a workable plan to implement it is better.
Well, yeah. Why would the democrats want to allow a competing party to split the vote in a swing state?
If you're under some impression that the democratic party should be boosting smaller political parties to somehow allow them to win offices and thereby dillute thier own voter base, then you're going to be disappointed. What your'e describing only makes logical sense for a political party that actually wants to win elections.
Kinda like if I had a lemonade stand, then you tried to open one right next to me and steal my customers. Yeah I don't think I'd be obligated to help you in that situation.
That's not what I said.
You seemed disappointed that the democratic party sued to stop a Worker's party candidate from getting on the ballot, right?
What I'm asking is why exactly you should expect the democratic party to not try and stop a competing party from splitting the vote?
Because their ideas are so great. Why only keep her off the ballot in swing states? Why didn't they sue to keep libertarians or green off the ballot?