![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
chron-job.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSkip if you are American-Primaried-Out.
On the attitude: "I want X to win the primary or I stay home in November!"
I've seen a bit of this online from both Hillary and Bernie supporters... but mostly I see it from third parties (in the media) talking ABOUT Bernie supporters. How prevalent it is, in which camp, is its own argument, but I have some ideas about how the sentiment takes hold, and I can see why it would be more prevalent on the Bernie side (and in case you don't already know, I'm a Bernie supporter).
The commonest source, which all sides are prey to, is just the regrettable consequence of the adversarial nature of an election. Tribes form, identity is invested, ego is at stake, and tactical, rational, voting is forgotten in the face of the LOSS of face. That's the obvious source, and its presence, to some extent in all factions, is kind of unavoidable, primate hierarchies being what they are.
But there is another source of the sentiment which I think is deliberately cultivated by committed partisans. It starts as a motivational technique, which eventually gets internalized to the detriment of the interests of the partisans that hold it. I saw it a bunch back in the long-ago-times, when I was a Libertarian.
Interested partisans, somewhat more outside of the mainstream than is typical for moderate American politics (because calling them "fringe" would be pejorative ;) ) want their candidate to win, or their platform to be expressed. The most common argument they run up against when trying to convert the like-minded-but-more-moderate, is the "electability" argument. The logic is obvious. "X is too Extreme! X's Extremity will alienate the middle! Vote for X-lite, or else, Y will win! And we don't want Y to win, do we?"
Well, any standardly deployed argument begs for a standard rejoinder. The standard retort to the "elect-ability" argument, is what I call the “equivocation” argument. "Hey guys, X-lite is really JUST LIKE Y. There's no real difference between X-lite and Y! X-lite is really just a crypto-Y! So, voting for X-lite as a tactic to avoid Y is a sucker's game! You might as well vote for X, because ALL the alternatives are just various sorts of Y’s!"
Whether or not X-lite is indeed a crypto-Y, is irrelevant. In some elections I suspect they are, in some not. But irrespective of any particular election’s specifics, the equivocation argument can be very powerful, because it uses as its fuel political cynicism and disengagement.
And that’s kinda shooting fish in a barrel.
On the attitude: "I want X to win the primary or I stay home in November!"
I've seen a bit of this online from both Hillary and Bernie supporters... but mostly I see it from third parties (in the media) talking ABOUT Bernie supporters. How prevalent it is, in which camp, is its own argument, but I have some ideas about how the sentiment takes hold, and I can see why it would be more prevalent on the Bernie side (and in case you don't already know, I'm a Bernie supporter).
The commonest source, which all sides are prey to, is just the regrettable consequence of the adversarial nature of an election. Tribes form, identity is invested, ego is at stake, and tactical, rational, voting is forgotten in the face of the LOSS of face. That's the obvious source, and its presence, to some extent in all factions, is kind of unavoidable, primate hierarchies being what they are.
But there is another source of the sentiment which I think is deliberately cultivated by committed partisans. It starts as a motivational technique, which eventually gets internalized to the detriment of the interests of the partisans that hold it. I saw it a bunch back in the long-ago-times, when I was a Libertarian.
Interested partisans, somewhat more outside of the mainstream than is typical for moderate American politics (because calling them "fringe" would be pejorative ;) ) want their candidate to win, or their platform to be expressed. The most common argument they run up against when trying to convert the like-minded-but-more-moderate, is the "electability" argument. The logic is obvious. "X is too Extreme! X's Extremity will alienate the middle! Vote for X-lite, or else, Y will win! And we don't want Y to win, do we?"
Well, any standardly deployed argument begs for a standard rejoinder. The standard retort to the "elect-ability" argument, is what I call the “equivocation” argument. "Hey guys, X-lite is really JUST LIKE Y. There's no real difference between X-lite and Y! X-lite is really just a crypto-Y! So, voting for X-lite as a tactic to avoid Y is a sucker's game! You might as well vote for X, because ALL the alternatives are just various sorts of Y’s!"
Whether or not X-lite is indeed a crypto-Y, is irrelevant. In some elections I suspect they are, in some not. But irrespective of any particular election’s specifics, the equivocation argument can be very powerful, because it uses as its fuel political cynicism and disengagement.
And that’s kinda shooting fish in a barrel.
(no subject)
Date: 8/3/16 22:05 (UTC)I'm all for Sanders, and I'm voting for him in the primary, but if Clinton gets the nomination, you can bet I'll be out there supporting her, loudly. I can't get behind the mentality that preaches "supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil." I might disagree, vehemently, with some of what Clinton proposes, policy-wise, but there are several real, substantial differences between her and Cruz, her and Trump, her and Rubio, and to pretend that those differences don't exist (and that many people wouldn't benefit greatly by her being in office as opposed to any of those three) is to just let perfect be the enemy of good. It's not about the lesser of "evils," it's about looking at policies, finding with whom one aligns closest, and making sure that among the things one disagrees with are no "deal-breaker" issues that are non-negotiable.
BUT, if you see the system itself as the problem (like my one friend who honestly thinks that some kind of socialist-anarchist revolution leading to eventual anarcho-communism is the only way to fix society*) then I guess I can understand why one would see someone who isn't a revolutionary as being the aforementioned "deal-breaker." But then, I can't get behind that mentality, not when there's so much at stake, and so many real people who would be hurt by the harmful policies being proposed by the reactionaries on the right.
*I've heard some of these folks on the far-left actually argue that they should vote for Trump or Cruz if they are the nominee, because the destruction they'd cause would push society that much closer to an eventual revolt and overthrow of capitalist oligarchy. It's militaristic fantasizing, not far removed from the folks who wish for more war overseas. They never seem to consider how much shedding of innocent blood would be involved in fulfilling their fantasies.
(no subject)
Date: 10/3/16 02:09 (UTC)As far as the 'too extreme' argument goes...I'd buy it any other year - but for some reason 'extreme' is in style this round