you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 1 year ago (15 children)

The path to progressivism does not run through assholes like Gavin Newsom. "Lesser-evilism" has brought us to Trump!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Pretty sure greater evilism brought us trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It's another way of looking at it. You're always going to have a fascist element in society who loves the "greater evil". Maybe we should demand more than "not quite as bad" to represent the opposition. Every time the "lesser evil" manages to win and then disappoints people, it demoralizes its own electorate. Every time the dems move rightward on issues, they push the "greater evil" even further right. This is how "lesser-evilism" helps bring us to where we are now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    So, I don't think you are entirely wrong, but I think you (and by extension, all americans) are out of luck on that front. There is not a single democratic candidate who, if elected with a supermajority in congress and a supportive supreme court, that would turn around the economic situation in the US from the course it's on.

    You can get some wins with social issues and foreign policy, and tinker around the edges of the economy, but even if Sanders or AOC became dictators tomorrow, their stated goals, while being light years ahead of Trump or any Republican, would not reverse the decline in living standards for the majority of Americans.

    For the issues most Americans care about most, their pocket book, lesser evil is all there is or will be for the foreseeable future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The lesser evil gets more evil every cycle. Foreign policy is the least likely to change between administrations. We are watching how an executive can wield power in spite of the courts and legislature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Let's be clear, the courts and legislature could stop this, they choose not to. They are captured. When/if a Democrat reaches the White House again they will not have half the power that Trump wields.

    (The courts are a little iffy, but I'm still confident the legislature could stop it if they wanted)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Could they? By what mechanism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Most obviously: impeachment.

    Less direct: passing laws stating "you can't do that."

    Least direct but the final boss: denying funding to whatever department he is using to do things they don't like.

    I suppose a full coup could establish funding sources not controlled by congress, but I suspect that things like bond markets would react unfavorably to a government power struggle on that scale. A dictator unconstrained by constitutional safeguards is not a safe bet to lend money to, and economic firestorm would topple even a successful coup as billionaires, pensions, and corporations saw their wealth evaporate and working people lost their jobs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Impeachment as a tool has been demonstrated to be basically worthless. Trump has demonstrated pretty clearly that our whole system relied almost entirely on everyone respecting the rules. Turns out there isn't really anything preventing full executive power. Ultimately, it comes down to the military. They are really the only force capable of removing the president.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Impeachment is worthless without a supermajority in the Senate.

    I didn't specify party. Congress could remove him, the Republican Senators refuse to do so.

    I don't think, if they voted to impeach, the FBI and capitol police would be like "nah, we are keeping him."

    I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It is more nuanced like that. You and I are not the average American voter. We can't assume all voters will act like us. We have to play the field and represent our true ideals as much as possible in balance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Show me the average American voter. I know a lot of people, but I've never met the average one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I assume you think that's a gotcha to me, but "average voter" is a phrase, not a specific person. It's meant to describe the general zeitgeist/trend of what most people are doing. Most people are not strong progressives by leftist Lemmy standards. That's fairly non-controversial. I'm trying to engage in good faith here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't mean it as a gotcha. It's meant to make you reconsider what I see as an unhelpful way of looking at people. If you think in terms of averages instead of in terms of people, I think you lose sight of what you're trying to achieve. You can think in terms of average (or common) problems people have, and speak to those.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment