President Nothing Will Fundamentally Change has made zero moves in the last 3.5 years to pack the court that overturned Roe v. Wade.
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
95 points (92.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7242 readers
337 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
all 45 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
I think the title is referring to the chance of 2 existing replacements, not packing the court.
Yeah, he should have...had one of the conservative justices murdered? WTF do you want him to do
You know the president can add justices, right? Court expansion is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch and approved by the Senate. So no, he doesn't need to kill a justice, he can just increase the court size.
The Constitution does not specify the size of the court.
Approved by the Senate
Did you miss this part?
I missed the part where Dems are somehow simultaneously the weak opposition party 100% of the time, and when they do have all three branches in control, there’s always somehow one Democrat that they can’t whip a vote from and tanks the whole bill.
Why. Won’t. They. Fight. Back. Against. The. Republicans.
Remember three years ago when the Senate parliamentarian magically blocked the Dems from getting the $15 minimum wage onto Biden’s COVID-19 relief bill?
Or a year and a half ago when they betrayed the rail workers by splitting the bill and then voting down the workers’ right to strike?
Those were kayfabe. The Democrats wanted to lose those fights.
Why. Won’t. They. Fight. Back. Against. The. Republicans.
Because. They're. On. The. Same. Side.
always
Are you talking about Joe Lieberman and the ACA and then Manchin and Sinema in 20-22? The fuck do you mean "always?" They're constantly fighting back against the Republicans
They have buddy-buddy dinners with each other all the time lol. This is not a serious power struggle to them.
Since 1980 there have only been 3 periods where Democrats have had solid control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency. The first was under Clinton, for 2 years, where they rammed through a number of right wing bills (that Genocide Joe helped with, like the Crime Bill and NAFTA). The next two were the ones you refer to, where Democrats adopted their excuse-making strategy rather than actually hold clear lines. And because the Dem base is domesticated, they learned to parrot those excuses rather than organize to demand policy.
And then the next conservative President will pack it again, and the Supreme Court will become a joke. There's a reason norms exist...
There is literally no downside because the Supreme Court is already a completely bought joke.
You say that, but it can always get worse. Let's not encourage that...
"We can't fight because they might fight back" is a poor political strategy and will guarantee that they fight you while you lose because everyone knows you don't have their backs.
The Dems are incapable of doing that fighting at the moment. Their strategy is to, once in power, begin the excuse-making for why they can't do anything. They are, however, lying to you. They pick someone like Manchin to be the whipping boy and put zero pressure on him, run no party strategy of, "we will get that done because we won't support candidates that fall out of line", i.e. a strategy that actually creates the promised policies over a period of multiple election cycles.
Sometimes this is because the policy is seen as a useful wedge issue for getting votes. More useful to them than actually creating the policy.
Either way, the Democrats will continue to be the party of capitulation and excuse-making while conditions degrade if their grassroots members don't organize to demand change and provide consequences when their demands aren't met. The logic you're currently following is the polar opposite of that and will ensure the status quo downward spiral.
Here's how I see it:
- Dems don't get anything done
- Reps are worse
- Vote Dem
- ...
- Profit?
Honestly, the same could probably be said for Republicans as well, though they do occasionally get stuff done.
So why do people keep supporting the stupid twp-party system? If every election is so important that we can't vote third party, when will we end the two-party stranglehold?
I recently watched an interview of Larry Sharpe by Sabby Sabs where he said,
Why are you burning down the house that you're going to buy back in two years?
This was talking about libertarian party infighting, but it applies to the two major parties as well. Why mess up the government that you're going to have majority control of in the next cycle? Likewise, why expand the power of a position that's going to change hands soon?
Just say no.
Republicans do the same kind of thing, yeah, but they throw some red meat to their base every so often. And over time they have created enough true believers in what was originally a cynical wedge issue that they are forced to create the policy. Dems haven't created those true believers that demand policy and throw a fit when they don't get it. They teach their constituents to repeat their excuses. Look at how weak they all are in response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. An organized constituency that actually cared about the policies would be rioting and demanding the court be delegitimized. Some of the younger people had the energy and approach for that but were tut-tutted by everyone up the chain. "The discourse" was immediately restricted to just, "Vote Blue". They aren't even primarying pro-life Dems, lol.
So why do people keep supporting the stupid twp-party system? If every election is so important that we can't vote third party, when will we end the two-party stranglehold?
Political education is very poor in the United States. Not only are people uneducated in basic political strategy or the core topics of politics itself, they are constantly inculcated with fairy tales from mass media. Not just the Kabuki of news television and various newspapers, but entertainment media that teaches lessons about being a principled loser fighting the good fight rather than organizing to win against forces that actually oppose your interests.
Americans only gain political education by attempting to get more involved and seeing how the sausage is made. Learning from others with more experience, and discovering that there is an entire library of political education out there that has been suppressed, by sheer volume of samey pap "political" books, from being on everyone's basic curriculum.
There are more ways to describe the forces at work, but the key issue is that Americans learn a false consciousness that is repeatedly pounded into their heads so that they cannot even understand that, for example, criticizing a reactionary Democrat does not mean you are a Trump-loving Republican.
The positive side of this is that we can use organization and education to move past this. If you can get someone to join a reading group, 9 out of 10 times they will learn, they will discard wrong ideas, and they will advance in their consciousness.
Re: third party, I think it's fine for raising consciousness and being part of an organized group, but we should always remember that the electoral system itself was set up by slaveowners that just wanted to keep their own money and power and that it continues to be an expression of ruling class interests. You can exhaust yourself just trying to get ballot access and the other parties will just change the rules anyways once you start doing well. There are other ways to build and yield power than entering legislatures and we shouldn't loss focus on them.
This was talking about libertarian party infighting, but it applies to the two major parties as well. Why mess up the government that you're going to have majority control of in the next cycle? Likewise, why expand the power of a position that's going to change hands soon?
Just say no.
The reason to expand the power would be to achieve the promised policy goals of a political program, of course. That they prefer to make excuses reveals exactly how much they prioritize those goals. They are players on a team that is more beholden to corporations' wishes than any premised policy that would save millions of lives. They just need you to not realize that so you'll keep voting them in.
demanding the court be delegitimized.
Why? The ruling honestly made sense, Roe v Wade was based on a concept of privacy through a convoluted reading of the Constitution. It was a crappy, sketchy ruling.
What should have happened is a federal law ensuring a right to abortion access (or at least a law establishing the right to privacy that Roe v Wade assumed existed). That should have happened way back when Roe v Wade was originally being considered. But Congress is disfunctional and doesn't actually seem interested in solving important problems.
You can exhaust yourself just trying to get ballot access and the other parties will just change the rules anyways once you start doing well
Sure. But if enough people actually notice it and care, politicians who do that won't do as well in reelection. The deck is already stacked against third parties (even the "private" debates use the same 15% polling BS the debate commission used), why not push politicians to make it more obvious.
Surely at some point people will demand change, we just need to be vocal and ever present so people get riled up about it.
The point isn't to get elected as a third party, it's to steal enough of the votes that the two major parties need to adjust their policies to pull votes from them. Trump promising to free Ross Ulbricht is a small example of that (I doubt he will though).
There are other ways to build and yield power than entering legislatures and we shouldn't loss focus on them.
Yes, and that's through forcing candidates to adjust policy positions to get enough votes to win. A great way to do that is media attention for fringe parties, and another is being vocal between elections (contacting reps, attending legislative hearings, protests, etc). Be loud, consistently.
Unless you live in a swing state/district (unlikely), your vote is better spent protesting the duopoly. I personally don't care what third party you pick, just vote for anyone other than the two major parties. Write someone in if you have to, the point is to reduce their votes.
Why? The ruling honestly made sense, Roe v Wade was based on a concept of privacy through a convoluted reading of the Constitution. It was a crappy, sketchy ruling.
To be blunt, so that people don't make arguments like this that assume the court is about calling balls and strikes. It is, in reality, an unelected political organ whose decisions are routinely full of absolute bullshit that is just cover for whatever a given justice personality preferred politically. As a consequence, you can come to two conclusions:
-
The Supreme Court can decide basically whatever it wants and just add some legal potpourri in top and should therefore be treated as a political organ subject to democratic norms. Expand and pack the court so that it becomes closer to matching the results of elections. Demand impeachment. Etc etc.
-
Start a project to reject the legitimacy of the court itself, as it is an unelected body making political decisions with very little basis in "the rules" for why it has basically any of its current powers.
What should have happened is a federal law ensuring a right to abortion access (or at least a law establishing the right to privacy that Roe v Wade assumed existed). That should have happened way back when Roe v Wade was originally being considered. But Congress is disfunctional and doesn't actually seem interested in solving important problems.
Congress is functioning exactly as intended. There is a great and useful quote from Stafford Beer where he says there is, "no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do." There is what we are told the system does and there is what it actually does. At some point one has to acknowledge that what it actually does is closer to its real purpose than the stories told about its purpose. In the case of legislating abortion rights, there are many layers to the political system that demonstrate this. You are right that Democrats should have simply written it into law. Obama even promised this in 2008, they enjoyed full control of the House and Senate. Then he quietly announced that it wasn't a priority.
This demonstrates that the party doesn't really care. They are made up of people who will always have abortion access themselves and who are social climbers playing a game that serves ruling class interests.
But there is more to it than that. Why was there no fear of backlash, particularly from women's groups (not excluding trans people, but the orgs at the time were focused on cis women)? Why didn't Obama lose the next election? It was just a normal soft "thud", completely ignored. You could say it seemed like Roe v. Wade was enough protection, that there was no sense of urgency or threat. This was false even then, because many states had de facto banned abortion. But surely this means that there is no serious political project that prioritizes this, and we can see this bearing out right now. The federal protection is gone. Deaths during and leading up to pregnancy are ramping up in the states that were ready to go right when the decision was made.
And there is, basically, no political project to show for it. The possibility of organizing for abortion rights had the life sucked out of it by, "vote blue no matter who". The party has plainly telegraphed what abortion is to them: a wedge issue to whip votes, not a policy to legislate.
Sure. But if enough people actually notice it and care, politicians who do that won't do as well in reelection. The deck is already stacked against third parties (even the "private" debates use the same 15% polling BS the debate commission used), why not push politicians to make it more obvious.
This is why it's important to make this part of a wider, sustainable political program that focuses more on other tactics. You can exhaust the entire party just getting ballot access. That means you can't do anything else. And for what? So that a different party can pretend to hold your position and continue to not act? This will be entirely unsustainable, you won't be able to retain people in such a project, and this is born out by the parties that operate this way, e.g. the Greens. They don't have a sustainable model for political engagement.
Elections should still be used but we should prevent burning out on a project that will, at best, amount to "we can pull him left".
Surely at some point people will demand change, we just need to be vocal and ever present so people get riled up about it.
At some point people will become so frustrated that they lash out. They will not become organized or politically educated by default. There is actually no guarantee that they will make a demand, let alone one they can back up with leverage. It's our job to organize the people before and while they have this energy and to adopt and teach correct political positions so that when it comes time to act, we have unity.
For example, take the George Floyd protests. They began as riots in response to America's endemic and violent racialized policing and criminal punishment system. People rose up and demanded change. But they were also disorganized. Different groups jumped in to try and direct the response to their interests. There were Al Sharptons mollifying it into another Vote Blue kind of nonsense. There were liberals that brought megaphones and convinced people to submit to police and get arrested for civil disobedience photo ops. There were organizations with a tokenizing and paper thin understanding of identity who tried to divide up the protest into black decision makers vs. everyone else. There were people who were good at tactics but had no strategy into which to insert it. When demands were made, there were Democratic politicians coming in and making promises to do something 6 months later. This was sometimes enough to get people to go home.Guess what they didn't do 6 months later, lol. Actually, guess what they did do 6 months later: hire more cops, increase the police budget.
All of the energy was there, the cause was just. The leverage was there. But it was almost all unrealized because the people were unorganized and not politically educated. They did not have unity of action. They did not identity the pitfalls of bourgeois politicians' promises and delay tactics. They did not have a larger project into which to plug people and create a sustainable system of organization-action-rest. They did not have efficient decision-making structures.
Those are the elements necessary to create a viable political organ in this environment. It requires long-term organizing work so that when lightning strikes, you already have your party and your coalition and nobody is taking it over just because they have a megaphone or a false promise.
Anyways the positive side of this is that we know how to build this. It's to gain political consciousness through reading socialist and anarchist materials (and more, of course) and to join an organization in that vein. Food Not Bombs is a nice one to join if you aren't sure what exact kind of group you'd want to be in. They make food for people. But their members are often in other organizations as well and you can start to get connected in the local organizing scene. Make positive connections. Then eventually join a more organized group. Other orgs are also fine, I'm just trying to make it simple.
Yes, and that's through forcing candidates to adjust policy positions to get enough votes to win. A great way to do that is media attention for fringe parties, and another is being vocal between elections (contacting reps, attending legislative hearings, protests, etc). Be loud, consistently.
They just treat that like a PR problem. They literally just spend some more cash from business owners to hire one or two PR firms. It nearly always works because the group making demands is too disorganized to have any real leverage.
There is a lot more that can be done to achieve political goals. Direct action has always been necessary for everything big, in fact. MLK didn't just say, "be loud", he helped organize actions that shut down towns, streets, etc. When he was murdered he was working on coordinating strikes with labor groups.
Unless you live in a swing state/district (unlikely), your vote is better spent protesting the duopoly. I personally don't care what third party you pick, just vote for anyone other than the two major parties. Write someone in if you have to, the point is to reduce their votes.
For president, I recommend that people vote uncommitted, or whatever the pro-Palestine protest vote campaign becomes for the general election. And to also take those first steps of becoming politically engaged beyond the intentionally limited system of bourgeois electoralism.
I'm not on board with socialism, at least not in the systemic sense most people refer to. I'm in favor of co-ops and private unions, but not government-level policy. I'm also not in favor of anarchism, though I think we generally need less government than more.
But the great thing about grassroots, single-issue endeavors is that we don't need to agree on the big picture, we only need to agree on that single issue. For MLK Jr., the message was clear: civil rights regardless of skin color. That united people regardless of political leanings, and being consistently loud about that single issue is what resulted in success. Yeah he wanted to go further (and I probably disagree on those goals), but he focused the civil rights movement on that one goal.
We need that same type of thing today. We need a figurehead that will focus on single issues that cross the partisan divide, and we need to keep pushing on it until we get it. Eliminating FPTP is a good option. The Palestinian issue would be a bit harder since it's not our war and both parties seem intent on supporting Israel. I'm in favor of either though.
We really need another MLK Jr., and unfortunately I don't see anyone stepping up. So the next best option is to keep making the conditions favorable for that. Force politicians to address the issue, and more people will get fired up, and maybe the next MLK will step up. I'm not that person, but maybe I can run for office and stir the pot a bit.
I'm not on board with socialism, at least not in the systemic sense most people refer to. I'm in favor of co-ops and private unions, but not government-level policy. I'm also not in favor of anarchism, though I think we generally need less government than more.
But the great thing about grassroots, single-issue endeavors is that we don't need to agree on the big picture, we only need to agree on that single issue. [...]
MLK was socialist and worked with socialists. He was murdered when he was working on the logical extension to the clearly incomplete legislative wins, which is to say, black people are not liberated so long as they remain oppressed by the economic system. Black Americans remain disproportionately poor and have to deal with far more hardship as a result of the strong remaining social forces built in anti-blackness.
The two things aren't separate, is the point, and in fact you probably won't achieve one without the other. Socialists organize in coalition around issues like these to build power. They don't just happen by themselves. Part of American political miseducation is to ignore or gloss over the radical organizations behind the major changes that bourgeois politicians later took credit for. The organizations that were necessary to create leverage, to become organized.
You don't need to be socialist to take the first steps I mentioned, which amounted to reading some books and helping feed people via Food Not Bombs. I highly recommend both!
We need that same type of thing today. We need a figurehead that will focus on single issues that cross the partisan divide, and we need to keep pushing on it until we get it.
Both parties are aligned against us on this, just as they were for basically every major issue. Civil Rights weren't fought by bridging a partisan divide, they were won through organization and direct action. Democrats feign support but you will actually have to fight them as well because they do not, in reality, have any interest in doing this. Rather than bridge a partisan divide, we must reject the false dichotomy and false consciousness that this is how the system operates.
Eliminating FPTP is a good option.
It will decrease the contradiction but it won't be gone. There are many other systems out there without FPTP and they still fail to reflect the wishes of the people. There are many ways to skin the bourgeois electoral cat. It comes back to the same basic issue: the ruling class controls the major aspects of the economy and through this sets the terms for political engagement through its processes. Only power built against them can sustainably oppose them, and our primary form of power is collective direct action, organization, and discipline. We do not have that and so we constantly lose. And fight among each other about just how much to capitulate and beg for scraps, neither of which actually do anything.
The Palestinian issue would be a bit harder since it's not our war and both parties seem intent on supporting Israel. I'm in favor of either though.
Even the Dem politicians that pretend to be pro-Palestinian vote to fund the genocidal apartheid ethnostate that is the Zionist regime. That is the most development you could hope for from Democrats: on one hand they will provide all the support and weapons and rhetorical cover they can for Israel and then with their other hand shed crocodile tears and call for an aid package or ceasefire. This is because Israel serves a purpose for the US. It is highly disruptive to movements in the region that would prevent the extraction of their resources and labor and placing them in American hands. The end result will be the same if the US retains its hegemony: the Palestinian people will become a permanent diaspora. Justice requires that we do more than pin hopes on pulling Democrats left.
We really need another MLK Jr., and unfortunately I don't see anyone stepping up.
MLK was an organizer and leader that was part of and built from a much larger, organized movement. To get an MLK we must build the organizations. It doesn't work the other way around. You don't build a movement because one person has charisma and the right ideas. There are already plenty of those people. They accomplish nothing because they have no organization.
So the next best option is to keep making the conditions favorable for that. Force politicians to address the issue, and more people will get fired up, and maybe the next MLK will step up. I'm not that person, but maybe I can run for office and stir the pot a bit.
You can't force politicians to do anything without organization and leverage. They will just treat you like a PR problem or, more likely, just ignore you. That's the lesson of this exact thread. Every person in the US that wants federal abortion law has been ignorable. Every single one. This is why it's so important that we all become educated and work together with groups that have sustainable strategies.
Yes, and MLK is a perfect example of someone I can agree with and vehemently support on one issue while disagreeing on others. I reject his socialist agenda, but I'm completely on board with his civil rights activism.
MLK wasn't successful because he was socialist, he was successful because his ideas resonated with a large, pissed off minority of various political persuasions. His org, the SCLC, was decidedly not socialist, in contrast to other groups at the time. Yeah, he had socialist views, but that was separate from his civil rights activism. And he was more of a democratic socialist, so more like Bernie Sanders than the USSR.
Civil Rights weren't fought by bridging a partisan divide, they were won through organization and direct action.
But they were. There's a reason King left socialism out of the civil rights fight, and it was to get greater appeal. He also wanted economic reforms, but that was secondary to the civil rights movement.
And when I say "partisan divide," I don't mean appealing to Republicans and Democrats generally, I mean appealing to something that goes beyond partisanship. Highlight an idea that doesn't fit on either side, and get people in the middle pissed off that neither side is doing anything about it. Eisenhower was a moderate Republican and he was guilted into helping, that's how much it resonated.
A good figurehead will focus the outrage on a single solution that doesn't fit neatly into partisan lines.
There are many other systems out there without FPTP and they still fail to reflect the wishes of the people.
Absolutely, but it's a step in the right direction. I'd like to go further and switch the House to be proportionally elected. But that scares people, so ending FPTP is the first step. Ending FPTP opens up opportunities for popular third party candidates to be able to win enough seats to effect real change.
Justice requires that we do more than pin hopes on pulling Democrats left.
I'm not talking about Democrats here, and I think left/right thinking isn't the way.
If Gaza is the hill we want to die on, it can't be a leftist justification, it needs to go beyond that. Unfortunately, this issue is seen as leftist, so it's going to be much harder to prove that decency isn't political. I'm not sure what the right messaging is, but I think Fatah needs to be seen as a stabilizing alternative to Hamas, and Israel needs to let them try stabilizing Gaza. Israel won't leave without Hamas losing power, and Hamas won't lose power without a realistic replacement. But if the US backs Fatah, it's going to be seen as meddling, and therefore it probably won't work. So the best approach, imo, is the "we can't afford to pick sides" argument, both from a fiscal and diplomatic angle. That's hopefully separated enough from partisan politics to work. But it's an uphill battle.
FPTP is comparatively easier and would be more impactful long term. It's not going to help Palestinians today though.
You don't build a movement because one person has charisma and the right ideas.
It worked for Trump.
The figurehead attracts people with similar concerns, and builds an org around themselves. King started with a small org that organized bus boycotts, then founded SCLC. He didn't rise through any ranks, he was an influential community member who decided to do something.
So no, I think it's more effective to build an org around a figurehead and an idea instead of trying to build an org and hoping the right person rises through the ranks. That's how Youtubers and streamers who get famous work, and that's how we'll get change rolling. That figurehead should build a coalition with existing groups, but I think they need to come at it as an outsider.
Yes, and MLK is a perfect example of someone I can agree with and vehemently support on one issue while disagreeing on others. I reject his socialist agenda, but I'm completely on board with his civil rights activism.
You wouldn't have the civil rights movement were it not for the socialist movement and MLK's understanding from it and organizational methods built from it. These are not separable qualities and it is why the approach you are suggesting does not work. Your suggestion is actually the status quo. There are many single-issue abortion rights groups out there. They are small and disorganized.
MLK wasn't successful because he was socialist, he was successful because his ideas resonated with a large, pissed off minority of various political persuasions. His org, the SCLC, was decidedly not socialist, in contrast to other groups at the time. Yeah, he had socialist views, but that was separate from his civil rights activism. And he was more of a democratic socialist, so more like Bernie Sanders than the USSR.
Bernie Sanders is not a socialist at all. He is a social democrat. He also failed to organize, as he only knew the aesthetics of the left and not the organizing content. He's actually another pretty good example of why your suggested method fails.
As I mentioned before, MLK was a leader and organizer within a much broader context of civil rights organizations both constituted by socialists and learning from their methods, including the methods of organized labor.
But they were. There's a reason King left socialism out of the civil rights fight, and it was to get greater appeal. He also wanted economic reforms, but that was secondary to the civil rights movement.
He left it out at first and then regretted doing so. This is why he pivoted to the Poor People's Campaign. It's also why liberation was dramatically incomplete. He arrived at a more accurate analysis and radicalized over time. He learned the exact same lessons that everyone does when they fight too idealistically, without a grounding in how the material forces work against you.
Of course, MLK was not the entire civil rights movement. Socialists were a major driving force the entire time.
And when I say "partisan divide," I don't mean appealing to Republicans and Democrats generally, I mean appealing to something that goes beyond partisanship. Highlight an idea that doesn't fit on either side, and get people in the middle pissed off that neither side is doing anything about it. Eisenhower was a moderate Republican and he was guilted into helping, that's how much it resonated.
No presidents are guilted into helping. Change doesn't come from a convincing speech. He responded to leverage and, as has been the pattern, sought to mollify the movement to prevent it from doing even more. This is the same government that blackmailed MLK and blacklisted, marginalized, and killed civil rights leaders.
Absolutely, but it's a step in the right direction. I'd like to go further and switch the House to be proportionally elected. But that scares people, so ending FPTP is the first step. Ending FPTP opens up opportunities for popular third party candidates to be able to win enough seats to effect real change.
But like I said, that's not how it works in reality. The base of power and leverage dictates the change, not popularity of a candidate. There are plenty of places without FPTP. There are places where representation comes from voting for a party and they get proportional seats. They still face the same fundamental problem.
Yet having a mass organization can get results even without much electoral representation.
I'm not talking about Democrats here, and I think left/right thinking isn't the way.
The right is reactionary and conservative, the left seeks to overthrow that order. To pursue justice you must be on the left. There is no fence-sitting nor valid pretense that these issues are isolated.
If Gaza is the hill we want to die on, it can't be a leftist justification, it needs to go beyond that. Unfortunately, this issue is seen as leftist, so it's going to be much harder to prove that decency isn't political.
The ideas mean nothing without organization and neither does any notion of respectability politics or framings. It is also not unfortunate that this is leftist. The bourgeois electoral parties and their followers are anti-leftist and generally quite racist towards Palestinians. I interact with them often. It is only the left that correctly understands and advocates for the national liberation of Palestine. We would not even be discussing it in support of Palestine were it not for the left.
I'm not sure what the right messaging is, but I think Fatah needs to be seen as a stabilizing alternative to Hamas, and Israel needs to let them try stabilizing Gaza. Israel won't leave without Hamas losing power, and Hamas won't lose power without a realistic replacement. But if the US backs Fatah, it's going to be seen as meddling, and therefore it probably won't work. So the best approach, imo, is the "we can't afford to pick sides" argument, both from a fiscal and diplomatic angle. That's hopefully separated enough from partisan politics to work. But it's an uphill battle.
We have no option to control any of that. We are disorganized and weak. What is achievable on the horizon of this invasion is to undermine support for the US' pro-Israeli position, to disrupt arms shipments, to increase mass consciousness of the true face of American empire.
It is not unlikely that the US' hoped-for path out of this is to effectively take over administration of Gaza, displace UNRWA so that it can control the population further, create some narrative where it pretends Hamas is defeated, and to keep Palestine divided. All of this depends on the US maintaining the ability to do so without a regional war breaking out. It requires the basic consent of the public to not get in the way of any of this. It is our job to get in the way.
FPTP is comparatively easier and would be more impactful long term. It's not going to help Palestinians today though.
FPTP won't do anything for any of this. This is core to the material interests of the country. The primary moving force for it. This isn't up to the task in front of us. Therefore, we must be realistic and plot a course that is sufficient.
It worked for Trump.
No it didn't. Trump also served bourgeois interests. And Biden has maintained the vast majority of his policies, or even made them worse. Trump is not a charismatic leader that created any kind of movement that took on "the establishment". Those are just words to him. He cannot call upon them to actually do anything.
The figurehead attracts people with similar concerns, and builds an org around themselves.
The Republican Party already existed and he slotted into it just fine.
King started with a small org that organized bus boycotts, then founded SCLC. He didn't rise through any ranks, he was an influential community member who decided to do something.
This is a typical organizer trajectory. You begin work in one org among a constellation. And often you then found a new one based on your connections, your fellow like-minded organizers. You then continue working in building your power through the organization.
That's how Youtubers and streamers who get famous work, and that's how we'll get change rolling. That figurehead should build a coalition with existing groups, but I think they need to come at it as an outsider.
YouTubers are not organizers when they do YouTube things, they're petty bourgeois entertainers whose entrainment is sometimes educational. This is why many of them are also quite politically miseducated. They do not know the work of organizing or the forces you encounter when you try to make something happen, so they spread false idealism about how to achieve goals, how the system works, and who are our allies vs. our enemies in a given situation. This doesn't mean they are simply bad, and they can be useful, but they're not going to get anything done whatsoever except help raise some atomized political consciousness.
What most people seem to do after watching thirst videos is to do the same thing they were doing before: nothing. And anecdotally, the people I encounter that rely heavily in YouTubers for political education have a false sense of their own knowledge and are somewhat disruptive when they join an organization. They haven't had to learn humility or how to disagree with others, they only developed a parasocial relationship in a relatively combative electronic space. This is why I emphasize them entering a political education program before they do much else.
Your suggestion is actually the status quo
Yes, because we don't have that spokesperson.
Look at the BLM movement. It's decentralized and has had incredible impact and reach, but it didn't actually change policy much outside a handful of areas. They obviously didn't need a centralized organization to get a popular movement going, so that's not the issue. The main issue they had is a lack of clear, articulable policy changes. You get that with a good spokesperson. They should have pushed for ending qualified immunity (so it's easier to hold police accountable) and perhaps legalization/decriminalization of recreational drugs (large reason for police interaction with black people).
But they didn't seem to want specific solutions, they wanted to end systemic racism, which isn't something you can really legislate. But organizing worked fine without centralization. They just needed a spokesperson like Dr. King to take that anger and focus it onto tangible solutions.
Trump also served bourgeois interests
That's irrelevant. We're talking about a single spokesperson building grassroots support for a cause. His stated cause was "drain the swamp," and it got people passionate enough to go against their own party (they seemed to want Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush) and nominate and then elect an outsider. The party responded with MAGA rhetoric and candidates to push that rhetoric.
The problem with Trump wasn't organizing, the problem is he's a narcissist who doesn't care about the actual message and just wants power. Had someone more interested in making actual change been in that role, things would've been different, but instead we got narcissist nonsense like election denial. And honestly, I'm glad he was ineffective because things could've been much worse...
What we need is someone like Trump that can reach a broad audience, but who is focused on resolving social issues. They need to distill anger into one or two policy changes, and go hard on those issues.
typical organizer trajectory
King wasn't part of some socialist organization. He started with MIA, which was a nonpartisan community improvement org, and that's where the bus boycott started. He went from there to found the SCLC, which again, wasn't partisan. He worked with the NAACP, which again wasn't and isn't socialist.
In fact, supporters demanded he distance himself from Bayard Rustin in the march on Washington because he was gay, openly socialist, and had ties with the Communist Party (not sure which was more important), which he agreed to. King having socialist views isn't why he was successful, and it could've derailed the whole thing if it was more widely known. The most socialist thing he pushed for in the march was a minimum wage increase, but that's really it.
There was a huge amount of socialist and communist resistance at the time, so if he made any of that explicit, I highly doubt he would've seen much success. Him being socialist is more of a footnote than a recipe for success. Tides have since changed, so maybe a popular socialist movement could work, but it probably needs to focus on democratic socialist policies (more welfare) instead of socialist policies (economic overhaul) since that's what most people these days tend to mean when they say "socialism."
Sure, ally with whomever you think supports your cause, but the recipe for success is not ideology, but issues. Issues have far broader reach than whole systems.
Yes, because we don't have that spokesperson.
No, because there is no organization. The status quo is sitting around and hoping for the aesthetics of past movements to appear. That's not how it works.
Look at the BLM movement. It's decentralized and has had incredible impact and reach, but it didn't actually change policy much outside a handful of areas. They obviously didn't need a centralized organization to get a popular movement going, so that's not the issue. The main issue they had is a lack of clear, articulable policy changes.
Untrue. This was a reactionary position spread by an oppositional media. Nearly every major city had a set of clearly articulated demands they printed on pamphlets, turned into chants, and presented to city councils. This was a recycling of the same false rhetoric used against Occupy Wall Street.
What they lacked was enough organization and political consciousness to create a lasting movement that would continue until its policies were achieved and then stay beyond that to defend them, because they will be rolled back otherwise.
You get that with a good spokesperson. They should have pushed for ending qualified immunity (so it's easier to hold police accountable)
This was a popular Reddit meme but it would do nothing to address this. Ending qualified immunity would just provide another means by which victims of cops could sue the city, county, or state, effectively. Even when qualified immunity is removed, individual cops are indemnified because they are in the act of performing their duties. It would primarily mean getting more money when they murder your child.
and perhaps legalization/decriminalization of recreational drugs (large reason for police interaction with black people).
That's a specific tactic but the broken windows strategy would remain in place. There are a million "public safety" excuses they will continue to use. Historically they would just use the criminalization of poverty.
Trump also served bourgeois interests
That's irrelevant. We're talking about a single spokesperson building grassroots support for a cause.
It's everything. If your mission is to organize to change that which runs counter to the full might of the ruling class, you will fail if you try to use their tools. You are not in their position. You do not have their money or the backing of the state. You are not class conscious, but they absolutely are. They will coordinate while you flail.
His stated cause was "drain the swamp," and it got people passionate enough to go against their own party (they seemed to want Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush) and nominate and then elect an outsider. The party responded with MAGA rhetoric and candidates to push that rhetoric.
He offered a false consciousness to whip votes for a major party and then continued to do the whims of the ruling class of which he is a member. His followers still believe in him despite this. He uses the mainstream tactics of bourgeois electoralism and his base of power is the same as Biden's, Bush's, McCain's, etc. He has no grassroots movent, they are just the same group of reactionary people that the GOP has been grooming for decades. You'll notice that many of their demands are amorphous and they instead believe in fantastical conspiracy theories about the things Trump supposedly did or was trying to do. There is no program, there is no call to action, they don't actually do anything except pull the lever like every other good sheep.
King wasn't part of some socialist organization. He started with MIA, which was a nonpartisan community improvement org, and that's where the bus boycott started. He went from there to found the SCLC, which again, wasn't partisan. He worked with the NAACP, which again wasn't and isn't socialist.
The organizations don't need to be explicitly socialist to draw from socialist organizing. The skills of being an organizer are of this exact legacy, and the lines drawn are not deep. WEB Du Bois, cofounder of the NAACP, was a communist and drew on his connections and experiences with socialists to frame its external messaging, internal political education, and overall structure. Their rank-and-file organizers drew from the movement, flocking to support as has always been the case, and doing the actual difficult work of organizing. When the Red Scare included the NAACP in its anticommunist purges, it found many examples and the NAACP, then run by liberals, did most of the purging themselves. It has become far less effective over time because they have adopted a liberal NGO model. They have very little power to actually do anything but PR.
The cofounder of MIA along with king was the head of a local union. The union with which it associated was created by a socialist. Organized labor is the bread and butter of socialist organizing and is built on that left spectrum even when people are just following its methods as dogma. It is an incomplete expression of class consciousness, of identifying your real enemy is the capitalist and their cronies, and creating a robust organizational network that uses unified direct action to achieve its demands.
Every modern movement learns the lessons of socialist organizing or perishes, assimilated into a status quo with dramatically incomplete victories and a new set of false storytelling about who they were and what they achieved - stories compatible with the status quo that was their oppressor or even giving credit to that oppressor instead of the brutal antagonistic fight that so many died for. When movements start out with better understanding and organization, they do better. They have fewer stumbling blocks. They don't have to learn as many lessons through failure. And they have to take fewer risks that their movement will simply dissolve because they are too disorganized.
In fact, supporters demanded he distance himself from Bayard Rustin in the march on Washington because he was gay, openly socialist, and had ties with the Communist Party (not sure which was more important), which he agreed to.
Yes, and this is triangulation that he later regretted. It's called respectability politics and it's always a bad idea.
King having socialist views isn't why he was successful, and it could've derailed the whole thing if it was more widely known.
This is the false logic of respectability politics. You fall into a pattern of giving the enemy their ammunition. You will run into this exact same situation with any movement you join. The ruling class will hire PR firms to declare a supposedly nefarious association, typically with the marginalized groups that make up your work. Will you then abandon them and undermine yourself? If you do pro-Palestine work, will you kick out the "terrorists" (Palestinians) in your organization when they are inevitably called that?
Instead, one of the tasks of your work, to achieve your goals, is to embrace and normalize these elements. You cannot build a pro-Palestine movement while vilifying Palestinians. You cannot build a black liberation that ignores the economic, i.e. that organizes against capitalism itself. King realized exactly this.
The most socialist thing he pushed for in the march was a minimum wage increase, but that's really it.
This is not true. Please review his later work when he was murdered.
There was a huge amount of socialist and communist resistance at the time, so if he made any of that explicit, I highly doubt he would've seen much success. Him being socialist is more of a footnote than a recipe for success.
As I have explained, it was core to the strategies and tactics used and the larger coalition itself was built from the movement.
Tides have since changed, so maybe a popular socialist movement could work, but it probably needs to focus on democratic socialist policies (more welfare) instead of socialist policies (economic overhaul) since that's what most people these days tend to mean when they say "socialism."
You're thinking of social democracy, not democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is still about the overthrow of capitalism, but it focuses in the use of electoral means. Like the project undertaken by Allende. See how nicely the ruling class treated him and the people of Chile.
I think you would benefit from doing some of the readings I mentioned.
Sure, ally with whomever you think supports your cause, but the recipe for success is not ideology, but issues. Issues have far broader reach than whole systems.
These are inseparable. If you merely pick an issue but do not have political theory and good organizational methods you will have a right idea in isolation and then be useless - or even work against yourself. BLM had a very clear issue and, in fact, quite specific demands around defunding and community policing. Demands entirely actionable by local Democratic city politicians that control basically every major city council. They failed because they were not organized and were not politically educated in who their enemy was, what tactics they would use, and how to fight back and maintain momentum. BLM was a failure because they have the same false consciousness you are recommending.
Even when qualified immunity is removed, individual cops are indemnified because they are in the act of performing their duties
That's the definition of qualified immunity. It's not a law, but an understanding in the courts that cops are special. Ending qualified immunity means passing a law that states cops aren't special and should be held to the same standards as regular citizens, with grants to do specific things to act in their official capacity (e.g. detain and arrest).
Ending qualified immunity is essential to getting rid of bad cops. And bad cops are who cause issues like George Floyd's death.
That's a specific tactic but the broken windows strategy would remain in place.
We should absolutely be fixing broken windows as we come across them.
Just like the civil rights movement didn't end racism, but instead gave minorities a lot of tools to fix the broken windows they came across, to the point where things are a lot better for POC today than before the CRA.
Ending qualified immunity and legalizing recreational drugs are approachable goals that appeal to a broad audience and will do a lot of good for POC specifically (and everyone generally).
He has no grassroots movent
But he does. He got a lot of people out voting who wouldn't have otherwise. They didn't have a clear, actionable goal, but they did have a clear message: "drain the swamp."
The lack of meaningful change was because Trump (their spokesperson) doesn't care about change, he just cares about being in the spotlight. We can learn a lot from his messaging and turn that into meaningful change.
Every modern movement learns the lessons of socialist organizing or perishes
That's just not true. Look at the American Revolution, which was pretty much the exact opposite: classical liberals (individualists) fighting against authoritarianism. That worked because people had a common enemy, so they organized for the purpose of defeating that enemy.
What you need to be successful is an "us vs them" mentality. That can come from a socialist background, but it doesn't have to.
Yes, and this is triangulation that he later regretted
Yes, but we don't know if he would've been as successful without doing it. Given the political and social climate at the time, I think King made the right call (for the movement, not for his personal convictions).
You cannot build a pro-Palestine movement while vilifying Palestinians
Sure, broadly speaking, but you can kick out specific individuals that will distract from the message. That's what King did, and I think his movement was successful for it. That's called compromise, and it works if you're careful to not compromise on your core message.
Please review his later work when he was murdered.
I'm not talking about his later work, I'm talking about the Civil Rights movement.
You're thinking of social democracy, not democratic socialism
My apologies, they're similar terms and I align with neither, so I sometimes confuse them. King appeared to be more of a social democrat than a true socialist, though he did associate with more radical socialists.
BLM was a failure because they have the same false consciousness you are recommending.
No, BLM failed because they didn't have consistent or lasting messaging. There are multiple ways to get that, and they did none of them. Chants don't change laws, actual proposed laws do, and protests and whatnot are there to get media attention for those proposed laws.
That's the definition of qualified immunity. It's not a law, but an understanding in the courts that cops are special. Ending qualified immunity means passing a law that states cops aren't special and should be held to the same standards as regular citizens, with grants to do specific things to act in their official capacity (e.g. detain and arrest). [...]
Unfortunately, this is not correct.
Qualified immunity means you can't attempt to sue individual cops when they break the law and do you harm. With qualified immunity, those harmed will sue the city, the county, the state, and so on. The individual cops are not part of this because of qualified immunity. I think we probably agree on that much.
The problem is that the actual cop themselves will not receive any direct consequences from a suit even with qualified immunity removed. This is because they are indemnified by being on-duty. There are precedents for this and the individual cops didn't have to pay jack. It still came from the city, county, or state.
Realistically, cops cannot be reformed in this way. There are a very large number of roadblocks baked into the system. You will basically have to repeatedly lose, not actually gaining the desired reform, until it escalated to a very high level and passing a very high bar of organizational work on our parts. It's difficult to maintain momentum when you have to lose 1000 times before winning your goal. You'd need a stronger approach that keeps up energy and finds material intermediate wins.
The most practical thing we can fight for in the immediate future is to defund the police and redirect the money towards the root material causes of crimes (and to decriminalize many things that shouldn't be crimes in the first place). This can be done at a local level by going after city councils and running proposition campaigns and so on.
We should absolutely be fixing broken windows as we come across them.
????
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/blog/how-to-actually-fix-a-broken-window/
There are more radical and correct framings but even mainstream analyses know that broken windows theory is really just a racist criminalization of poverty that throws a ton of people in jail over minor "offenses".
But he does. He got a lot of people out voting who wouldn't have otherwise. They didn't have a clear, actionable goal, but they did have a clear message: "drain the swamp."
Like I said and you are now saying,, he just has people that will vote for him. That is every single Democratic or Republican candidate. That is not actually a movement. He can't actually mobilize them. They aren't involved. They don't train each other. They aren't organized. They don't have an agenda. They're just good sheep to pull a lever.
The lack of meaningful change was because Trump (their spokesperson) doesn't care about change, he just cares about being in the spotlight. We can learn a lot from his messaging and turn that into meaningful change.
Trump is a part of the ruling class. One among many grifters that make large piles of money based on other people's work, knows that Washington really works through money. His self-interest is the same as the rest of the class. He's just ruder and more direct about it, not being a classy liar.
He didn't change much because yes, he didn't want to and therefore received institutional backing and did not confront substantial pushback from moneyed interests. Just like every other President.
That's just not true. Look at the American Revolution, which was pretty much the exact opposite: classical liberals (individualists) fighting against authoritarianism.
The American Revolution was an inter-bourgeois civil war, more or less. The national bourgeoisie of the colonies wanted to rule itself and keep its cash and whipped up a fervor based on that. They succeeded at that, indeed. They were just as "authoritarian" (a word that means almost nothing in liberal discourse). There is nothing more authoritarian than shooting your enemy in the face so that you get to be in charge now. Remember, the liberal "individualists" we're talking about were slavers and settler-colonial genociders. Their words are a fairy tale, a myth, used to manufacture consent for ruling class interests, namely sending your kid off to fight in a war.
As a bourgeois revolution, it was relatively top-down in nature. It received its support from a large faction of the existing ruling class, not ground-up organizing against the ruling class. This is not the kind of movement we are talking about and I hesitate to even call it a movement.
Yes, but we don't know if he would've been as successful without doing it. Given the political and social climate at the time, I think King made the right call (for the movement, not for his personal convictions).
I do because I organize. I see how respectability politics tends to result in self-marginalization and defeat, usually crushing attempts in their infancy. A front group is fine, but when you begin to excise your comrades that know how to build from a coherent material base you only hurt yourself. Your movement will peter out. And the civil rights fight did. It was mollifies via legalization of some protections, the targeted murder and blacklisting of its leaders, and the integrating of some of its leaders, usually junior ones, into the ruling class order as politicians that told defanged false histories (ones compatible with using the false promise of ruling class tools) so that correct and useful strategies are not rediscovered.
Sure, broadly speaking, but you can kick out specific individuals that will distract from the message. That's what King did, and I think his movement was successful for it. That's called compromise, and it works if you're careful to not compromise on your core message.
Every time you try to organize, the ruling class will hire a PR firm to identify how to split your groups up and therefore interfere with your ability to act in unison and to make use of more effective strategies. They will promote the least effective groups and strategies, the ones they can control and defang, and demand the exclusion of the more effective groups by using marginalization and vilification. "Kick out specific individuals" is not an accurate framing of how this functions.
The Civil Rights Movement benefited from already having substantial momentum and a subset of socialist organizing tactics by the time the purges began. Had it happened earlier to the same effect it would have been crushed just like it was several times before.
I'm not talking about his later work, I'm talking about the Civil Rights movement.
That doesn't change the relevance of my response.
My apologies, they're similar terms and I align with neither, so I sometimes confuse them. King appeared to be more of a social democrat than a true socialist, though he did associate with more radical socialists.
King identified as a Democratic Socialist and became more radical over time as he recognized the same lessons I'm talking about.
No, BLM failed because they didn't have consistent or lasting messaging.
This is a counterproductive nagging that mirrors the criticism of the white moderate made by King. I've already explained how it's factually inaccurate, but it is also wrong in its basic emphasis. It is the reactionary Obama tut-tuting that would do nothing because it did nothing. Every major city I helped in had unified and clear messaging. It did not get the goods. It is the logic of our opponents who pretend to be our allies but do nothing to help and actually instead promote the logic of self-defeat and false rationalizations. It has no basis in the on-the-ground reality and constitutes inventing realities rather than embedding with the actual people impacted and following the course of events.
It is unserious and a bad faith argument. I suspect you are just repeating it based on hearing others say it and don't mean it in bad faith yourself.
There are multiple ways to get that, and they did none of them. Chants don't change laws, actual proposed laws do, and protests and whatnot are there to get media attention for those proposed laws.
There were 4-8 very clear bulleted demands shared by every city movement I worked in that could be implemented with relative ease by any city council. For example, cut the police budget 50%. This does not require, in any way, some technocratic approach or special legalize. Councils are constantly in the business of changing the police budget, they do it as a matter of course. The demand and leverage are all that is needed. Their messaging was consistent and they had dedicated media teams presenting the information and having everyone redirect the press to media liaisons. There were occupations with those demands clearly laid out and tabling to engage community members.
They had exactly what you say was needed. They failed because of your ideas. In thinking that would be anywhere close to enough. In failing to understand leverage and the necessity of having your demands in-hand before giving up anything. And that all of this necessitates core organizing competencies and a coherent internal political line that identifies the enemy correctly, because otherwise you will lose to the internal continents that use your exact logic to defang and break the movement. To focus on messaging and the assumption of good faith from politicians. Of being surprised when you are met with maximum pressure from your alleged liberal allies. Of not knowing on which side their bread is buttered and how to organize to create the power they can't take away from you using their preferred tools, or asking you to give up your leverage in exchange for their false promises of what your power looks like and how it's built.
Oh, yeah, because playing nice with the right wing has worked well so far.
Why are you asking me when I just told you? We’ve been saying it for the last three years: pack the court.
They are Supreme Court Justices, they have more job security than Biden.
Everyone knows that, which is why packing the court is the only way to change its make-up in the near-term.
NYT, Sep. 2020: End the Filibuster? Pack the Court? The Left Is Pushing Biden
Damn. Biden should really tell that to the guy running against Trump. He's really dropping the ball.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“The next president is likely to have two new Supreme Court nominees — two more,” Biden said at a campaign fundraiser in Los Angeles, adding that Trump had already appointed two justices who are “very negative in terms of the rights of individuals.”
Biden’s comments came at a campaign fundraiser in Los Angeles where he appeared alongside former President Barack Obama, actors George Clooney and Julia Roberts and comedian Jimmy Kimmel.
Kimmel noted that almost two years ago, conservative justices appointed by Trump played a pivotal role in overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion access.
One of the others drives around in a $267,000 gift on vacations,” the comedian added, referring to controversies surrounding conservative Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who came under scrutiny for previously undisclosed trips given by a GOP megadonor.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he would not probe Alito for the reported upside-down flag, but urged the conservative justice to step aside from two pending cases involving Trump and the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.
Chief Justice John Roberts also rejected a request to meet with Democratic senators to discuss Supreme Court ethics in light of the flag controversy.
The original article contains 471 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 56%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Wow, he should probably stop doing genocide then.
[removed by mod]
Biden will lose if he doesn't stop doing genocide.
Why doesn't he care?
Genocide is the kind of thing where you should take a few steps back and say, "you know what, maybe I shouldn't support this with my usual knee-jerk partisanship".
DON’T FEED THE TROLLSt!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone to the left of me is a troll.