The Civil Rights Act of 1957, ushered through by LBJ and filibustered (unsuccessfully) by Strom Thurmond came during those eight years. It got watered down badly but Wikipedia says a few percent more black people got to vote. That's a step up and it was the first civil rights act since Reconstruction. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 did more still. It's progress and both represent a new commitment from the political establishment to civil rights. Of course the CRA of 1964 eclipses the lot.
Ike also sent the 101st Airborne to make sure the Little...
Okay, I admit my knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement is a little weak when it comes to that angle (the slimy manuverings to try to keep the New Deal alliance of liberals and Dixiecrats together while pushing forth a basic statement of human equality), but I think you'd have to agree that there is some room to argue how mainstream the CRM was and that Hedges, although perhaps sanctimonius and maybe a scumbag, isn't being indifferent to white supremacy.
I'm generalizing from his point about third parties needing to make the political establishment do stuff. That has happened, but it's not required. Sometimes the establishment moves without the threat of a third party, or with only a trivial outside party involved like, sorry, the CPUSA.
However after I wrote that post I went and read some Foner. He's up into the late 30s now and spent quite a bit of time talking about the Popular Front, which apparently was at least pretty influential among leftists for a few years. So I'll back off a little on the CP being totally marginal in the 30s. It seems like while they remained a tiny fringe party there was a lot of interaction and organization for social justice with people outside the party.
Oh, is that Philip or Eric? Probably that book you were talking about in the books thread.
Anyway, as for the influence of the CP, of the top of my head:
San Francisco General Strike of 1934 was entirely them. Although John Lewis wasn't a commie (and wasn't really too hot about the Democrats), I believe that leftist historians all agree that the CP was the mover and shaker in the organizing drives that built the CIO. I personally believe, but can't prove, that the reason blacks became heavily Democratic Party voters was through the influence of the CP. Some film historians (Pauline Kael, I think, for one) refer to the movies of the '40s as Hollywood's Stalinist period. The Unemployed Leagues, the city block movements against evictions, etc., etc.
Of course, one of the reasons that they were able to get this influence was because, during most of the thirties and forties there was the Popular Front in which the borders between the Dems and the Commies could get kind of blurry. The Soviet-American alliance during WW II helped quite a bit, too. This is why the ruling class needed a witchhunt after the war.
and the Chavenistas think Obama is a useful fool (see: going after Honduras for actually following their constitution and ousting a president that broke the law).
Yeah. Obama's the man.
I was wondering if you could expand on this.
Because that doesn't sound the way I heard it.
Yeah, I know. I guess you kind of forget that WE started this s%&% back in 1953. We kind of decided that oil was more important than the sovereign rights of a nation to self determination, and continued to make the same decision time and time again. And backed Israel constantly. And put our troops on their holiest of lands to punish a country for invading a country that didn't exist (and was slant drilling oil that didn't belong to them) until Britain decided to royally f~*& up the whole region by making up a bunch of countries (same crap they pulled in Africa, and the same crap they pulled in India when they left) that made no sense.Maybe, instead of thinking we're right, we should acknowledge that WE created this mess and perhaps we should FIX it instead of continually making it worse so BP and Exxon can make more money.
No thats exactly it. Its the way that theyre similar that scare me and disqualify them both for me. I really cannot fathom how anyone can support either one.
Simple: There is no viable third choice.
And while it is correct that if enough people voted for a third party, there would be, that is a classic prisoner's dilemma. In practice what you get is Bush winning Florida.
No thanks.
Equally, we have the right to point out the flaws in their approach.
Pfft. Whatever, dude.
Vive le Galt!
Well, depending on where you were and how many others did the same, you might have kept if from being close enough to steal.
In general, I suppose; in particular, Samnell lives in Michigan. Went with Gore.
Boo-yah!
Everyone's a blind sheep nowadays.
1) People have been saying that since...well, since always.
2) You forgot "except me.". ;-)
No thats exactly it. Its the way that theyre similar that scare me and disqualify them both for me. I really cannot fathom how anyone can support either one.Simple: There is no viable third choice.
And while it is correct that if enough people voted for a third party, there would be, that is a classic prisoner's dilemma. In practice what you get is Bush winning Florida.
No thanks.
Obligatory objection about Bush-voting Democrats, Republican election theft, Nader voters not being liberals, etc., etc., etc.
Obligatory objection about Bush-voting Democrats, Republican election theft, Nader voters not being liberals, etc., etc., etc.No thats exactly it. Its the way that theyre similar that scare me and disqualify them both for me. I really cannot fathom how anyone can support either one.Simple: There is no viable third choice.
And while it is correct that if enough people voted for a third party, there would be, that is a classic prisoner's dilemma. In practice what you get is Bush winning Florida.
No thanks.
I'd like to hear more about this actually.
FHDM--There's a big fight between me and Citizen Betts about it in the other Obama thread which, IIRC, is called "Obama Deserves a Second Chance."
But yeah, 90,000 black people kept off the rolls erroneously as felons, I believe.
EDIT: Sorry, but it sticks in my throat.
I mean, I didn't vote for Nader (Voting is for ninnies!), but if your democratic republican system requires you to take into consideration before you choose your candidate that one of the parties might rig the vote, well, maybe something other than third-party voters is at fault.
Obligatory objection about Bush-voting Democrats, Republican election theft, Nader voters not being liberals, etc., etc., etc.No thats exactly it. Its the way that theyre similar that scare me and disqualify them both for me. I really cannot fathom how anyone can support either one.Simple: There is no viable third choice.
And while it is correct that if enough people voted for a third party, there would be, that is a classic prisoner's dilemma. In practice what you get is Bush winning Florida.
No thanks.
None of which changes the fact that Nader voters accomplished literally nothing except shooting themselves in the foot by ensuring a Bush presidency that never would have happened if they had voted for the viable candidate they agreed with most.
If you had told each Nader voter, "We've looked at the results, and your single vote is going to decide the election. Nader can't win, he's got too few votes, so it's going to be Bush or Gore. Gore is currently losing by half a vote. So you can vote for Nader, but Bush wins if you do," what do you think they would have done? Still voted for the third party candidate? Or would the very real fear of a Bush presidency and pointlessness of a Nader vote have compelled them to switch to voting Gore? The above scenario is utterly fictional, of course, but it drives the point home.
More importantly, how would you have felt if your neighbor was put in the above position, and still voted for Nader? How would you have felt about him if he literally had the power to stop Bush from being elected, and he knew it, and still chose to hand it to Bush?
Because that was the reality for 500 Nader voters; they just weren't told so up front. Which is why it's so important to actually think about your vote. You won't be told whether your vote is going to be critical to deciding the outcome of the election, but that may well turn out to be the case in hindsight.
Okay, I admit my knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement is a little weak when it comes to that angle (the slimy manuverings to try to keep the New Deal alliance of liberals and Dixiecrats together while pushing forth a basic statement of human equality), but I think you'd have to agree that there is some room to argue how mainstream the CRM was and that Hedges, although perhaps sanctimonius and maybe a scumbag, isn't being indifferent to white supremacy.
I think Hedges is dumb enough, especially when it comes to broadcasting his own virtue like he was in the article, to be the clueless variant of a white supremacist. It's not essential to my point, though. (I can't be bothered to care anywhere near so much about his personal virtue as he clearly does. If I did, I wouldn't have time to eat, sleep, or breathe. Really I don't know where he gets the energy...) I'm mostly objecting to his insistence that a third party is needed in order to make any improvement to American democracy. Movements do not require new parties to get their stuff done. Having a party for it too is sort of a maximalist strategy that often ends up very counterproductive. The CRM is the first counter-example that came to mind.
I don't think it's entirely clear that abolition was a third-party initiative that forced its way into the mainstream either, but that's a more complicated topic. The GOP gets called the only successful third party, but really it was something closer to a second party. The Whigs tore themselves apart and the GOP built itself from the ruins. Aside some nonce parties like the Constitutional Unionists, it's only real foe was the Democrats. Whereas the idea of a third party is that there are two other viable parties. But that's arguable and I opted to pass it over since the CRM is a clearer case.
Oh, is that Philip or Eric? Probably that book you were talking about in the books thread.
Eric. I finished the New Deal era chapter of The Story of American Freedom last night. Had a funny moment when he mentioned how the public universities in NYC got purged of communists. I know his father was one of them but he didn't mention that. I initially thought he should since he has a personal connection that's relevant here but then decided that would be a bit unprofessional. Then I thought he might say something in the way of full disclosure. But then again the university purge is just one of a series of data points and not one essential to his case so if he brought up his own connection he might have to treat it as more than one of his examples, which would feed into the notion that he has a personal axe to grind.
I'm really not sure what the best way to handle it would have been. It's clear from his other writings that Foner made his peace with it long ago and I'm sure his old man's replacement did right by him when Foner came up through the PhD program (Yes, his advisor was the guy that replaced his father.) so I know he's not nursing an old gripe, but if he wanted to deal with that he'd probably have had to go through the whole business. I can see where he's coming from, but it feels weird to read it knowing what I do.
Anyway, as for the influence of the CP, of the top of my head:San Francisco General Strike of 1934 was entirely them. Although John Lewis wasn't a commie (and wasn't really too hot about the Democrats), I believe that leftist historians all agree that the CP was the mover and shaker in the organizing drives that built the CIO. I personally believe, but can't prove, that the reason blacks became heavily Democratic Party voters was through the influence of the CP. Some film historians (Pauline Kael, I think, for one) refer to the movies of the '40s as Hollywood's Stalinist period. The Unemployed Leagues, the city block movements against evictions, etc., etc.
Of course, one of the reasons that they were able to get this influence was because, during most of the thirties and forties there was the Popular Front in which the borders between the Dems and the Commies could get kind of blurry. The Soviet-American alliance during WW II helped quite a bit, too. This is why the ruling class needed a witchhunt after the war.
Yeah. My labor history is not that good. I grew up in a small industrial town and the teachers were pretty careful to make the labor movement come off as a long-ago thing that's all settled now and then not talk about how the ruling class came roaring back.
Foner marks the Popular Front's golden years with the wider left as the late 30s, ending when the CP followed Moscow's line and went from anti-fascist to all buddy-bud after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Understandable, since its leadership was Stalinist but the base was not. I'm not up to the war years yet, but I imagine the CP being cut off from the wider left after that contributed a lot to the ability of the right to get all Puritan. It's not just that the targets often did have personal ties, but also that the distancing made those ties harder to defend.
FHDM--There's a big fight between me and Citizen Betts about it in the other Obama thread which, IIRC, is called "Obama Deserves a Second Chance."
Woops, it was the Third Party Voting Thread.
Yeah. My labor history is not that good. I grew up in a small industrial town and the teachers were pretty careful to make the labor movement come off as a long-ago thing that's all settled now and then not talk about how the ruling class came roaring back.
Yeah, believe me, you and everybody else. I don't think anybody learns labor history in school anymore.
You might also be interested in a pretty awesome two-volume history (written in the '50s) of the CPUSA by Theodore Draper--The Roots of American Communism and American Communism and Soviet Russia.
Not only are they awesome books, but Draper was also part of a family of left-wing historians! In his case, though, it was his brother, Hal, and, even better, Theodore was a Stalinist (ex- by the time he wrote the books) and Hal was a Trotskyist. They even had a relatively famous debate in NYC in the mid-30s!
I think Hedges is dumb enough, especially when it comes to broadcasting his own virtue like he was in the article, to be the clueless variant of a white supremacist. It's not essential to my point, though.
It may not have been essential, but it was certainly the part that stood out the most!
Popular myth but not quite true. Nader did not tip the electoral votes in any state when it comes to the numbers. Now an argument could be made for Florida where the numbers would have made a difference, but that state was so messed up that there were alot of other voting shenanigans that would have made an even greater difference.
Florida was what I was referring to.
And yes, Florida was screwed up, but you cannot refute the fact that if Nader voters had chosen to vote for a viable candidate, Bush would never have become President. That is a fact. You can say, "But hanging chads! But Supreme Court! But voter rolls!" all you want; all of those share some of the blame. But Nader voters do, too.
It's really easy to pontificate from hindsight. But truly who could have thought that Gore would have put up so lame a campaign against so mediocre an opponent that it would have come down to that type of a squeeze?
THAT'S THE POINT. In close elections, you cannot anticipate exactly how much individual votes will matter. Accordingly, you should vote in a way that ensures that, if such an eventuality does occur (and, historically, it has) you are not responsible for the outcome you wanted to avoid the most.
And again.. are you going to put a higher blame on 500 Nader votes?
I'm going to put some of the blame on them. This isn't about being able to say, "Florida happened solely because of Nader voters and no one else, so screw Nader voters!" This is about saying, "Nader voters were one of the deciding factors in what happened in Florida, and should serve as a cautionary tale for anyone considering throwing support behind third party candidates in a swing state."
Important thing to rememmber is that the number of Nader votes by themselves don't matter, it's where the electoral votes were swung. The ONLY state where the number would have made a difference is Florida. But the Republicans were stealing the election 7 ways from Sunday So if you want to pin the blame on Nader for Gore losing in a rigged state contest... that's fully up to you.
I blame the GOP plenty. But I'm not speaking to them. I'm speaking to people who are looking forward to making the same mistake made in Florida. It doesn't matter that Florida was rigged. Elections can (and have!) come down to a handful of votes, even without political tampering. With that in mind, you should always treat third party candidates as potential spoilers in tight elections.
You can try and minimize the impact of Nader voters in FL, 2000 all you want, but the harsh truth is that GOP staffers were probably toasting to his name in the wake of the election. They literally couldn't have done it without him.
Everyone's a blind sheep nowadays.1) People have been saying that since...well, since always.
2) You forgot "except me.". ;-)
Correction to that, since the exceptions are the ones discussing the problem here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff about third party candidates in tight elections.
The thing is, as much as I disliked Bush (infinity) and as however much I support Obama (maybe it's time to settle), I would rather see Romney elected than live under a government that bars third party candidates, or forces people to vote for any candidate but the one they want to.
I'd hate to see Romney elected president, but if he wins because Obama's margin of victory is smaller than the number of people who vote for a third party candidate, that's the system working.
The thing is, as much as I disliked Bush (infinity) and as however much I support Obama (maybe it's time to settle), I would rather see Romney elected than live under a government that bars third party candidates, or forces people to vote for any candidate but the one they want to.
Fortunately, your government does no such thing. You are free to vote for whomever you wish. Only two of the options give your voice any chance whatsoever of deciding anything, though, so while you have plenty of freedom, you are limited in terms of reasonable options.
I'd hate to see Romney elected president, but if he wins because Obama's margin of victory is smaller than the number of people who vote for a third party candidate, that's the system working.
Is it?
Imagine a field in which the conservative movement in America - all 47% of them, or whatever - wise up, and agree that they are better off uniting behind a single candidate for practicality's sake. Now imagine that, at the same time, dozens of individuals from dozens of third parties run in the election, all with left-leaning points of view. Imagine that the liberal movement in America - again, all 47% of them, or whatever - don't decide to unite behind a single candidate, and instead all decide to vote for the third party candidate they like the most. The stoners vote for the legalization candidate. The feminists vote for the women's rights candidate. The socialists vote for the one with the most liberal economic agenda. So on, and so forth. In the end, the non-conservative half of the country splits its votes a dozen ways, ensuring that no candidate receives enough of a vote to challenge the united conservative movement.
What went wrong?
The candidates did nothing wrong. They may have been excellent, and they all may have offered up strong, cogent views. But each of them varied slightly in what those views were, and remember, everyone voted for the candidate they liked best. "Why compromise?" they say. "Why support something you don't believe in 100%?" they say. The candidate the stoners voted for may have had a great economic agenda, but the stoners latched onto his views on drug legalization. The women's rights candidate may have had a truly inspired foreign policy platform, but the feminists latched onto her views on abortion rights and workplace equality.
Is this the system working as intended? I will put it as frankly as I can for you:
If everyone votes with their conscience for the candidate they most strongly believe in, everyone who voted with their conscience loses.
That is the reality of our political system - a first-past-the-post, electoral college-based democracy. The rules governing elections dictate that this is the outcome of the scenario you want to see.
What if the majority of people who vote with their conscience choose the candidate you prefer?Not speaking in the abstract, the actual candidate you, Scott Betts, actually do prefer? And what if they do it in a swing state such as, oh say, Florida? I assume you wouldn't call those votes wasted.
What if the majority of people who vote with their conscience choose the candidate you prefer?
If the majority of people who vote with their conscience choose the same candidate, and if enough voters vote with their conscience, that candidate would probably win.
But that assumes a homogeneous United States population, where the traits one selects for in a presidential candidate are identical for everyone. That is not the case. If everyone votes for the candidate they like most (assuming everyone educates themselves to a sufficient degree to be familiar with the candidates' platforms) then the votes will be wildly split, as I explained earlier.
Not speaking in the abstract, the actual candidate you, Scott Betts, actually do prefer? And what if they do it in a swing state such as, oh say, Florida? I assume you wouldn't call those votes wasted.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. If there were a third party candidate I liked better than Obama, and if those conscience-voters represented a large enough voting bloc to take a deciding number of votes away from Obama, I would consider those votes worse than wasted.
There's also a tendency for third party voters to assume that if everyone was freed from the assumption that 3rd party candidates can't win and really voted without worrying about wasting their vote then a 3rd party would win.
I think that's hopelessly naive. Cynically, I think it ignores the effect of the massive dumps of advertising. Most people also don't really pay a lot of attention and are more persuadable by middle of the road arguments. And finally a lot of it is tribal voting. Team Red vs Team blue.
With IRV or a similar system, 3rd parties still wouldn't win. They might have more influence. They might not.
Let me say out front, I'm going to vote for spoiler alert Obama. I know, it's obvious if you've read anything I've posted up till now.
As to what Jeff said, I don't think any third party candidate will make a difference until the media industrial complex starts covering fourth, fifth and sixth party candidates. That won't happen until the lower rungs of party candidacy become much more pertinent to the election. That will probably require a complete overhaul of the election process.
And this is why Doodlebug has more of an effect on politics by handing out commie newspapers, and not voting, than any of us who think posting on RPG message boards is a game-changer.
There's also a tendency for third party voters to assume that if everyone was freed from the assumption that 3rd party candidates can't win and really voted without worrying about wasting their vote then a 3rd party would win.
I think that's hopelessly naive. Cynically, I think it ignores the effect of the massive dumps of advertising. Most people also don't really pay a lot of attention and are more persuadable by middle of the road arguments. And finally a lot of it is tribal voting. Team Red vs Team blue.
With IRV or a similar system, 3rd parties still wouldn't win. They might have more influence. They might not.
I think the biggest obstacle to any third party's success is that third party platforms simply aren't popular enough with enough people.
It's really kind of interesting. Democrat apologists are far more likely to try to crucify 500 Nader voters WHO WEREN'T MEMBESR OF THEIR PARTY, rather than the over 200,000 Florida Democrats who voted for Bush.
We're not trying to "crucify" Nader voters just to make them feel bad. We're trying to show, empirically, that doing what Nader voters did in Florida in 2000 can be a deciding factor in an election - the difference between Gore and Bush - and despite it all people are still saying they're proud to be voting third party as though it's doing something other than endangering the well-being of their country.
We know there's plenty of blame to go around, and trust me, Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000 feel pretty bad about it. But this isn't about assigning blame. This is about trying to make sure that people don't repeat the mistakes of past elections in a vain attempt to be a conscience-voter.
Citizen X, you can look at the other thread to see which arguments I've already used. Or you can reinvent the wheel, your call.
And this is why Doodlebug has more of an effect on politics by handing out commie newspapers, and not voting, than any of us who think posting on RPG message boards is a game-changer.
I think Hedges is dumb enough, especially when it comes to broadcasting his own virtue like he was in the article, to be the clueless variant of a white supremacist. It's not essential to my point, though.It may not have been essential, but it was certainly the part that stood out the most!
But h-
No, I'm definitely the weird one. :)
I think Hedges is dumb enough, especially when it comes to broadcasting his own virtue like he was in the article, to be the clueless variant of a white supremacist. It's not essential to my point, though.It may not have been essential, but it was certainly the part that stood out the most!But h-
No, I'm definitely the weird one. :)
I'm willing to put money on it: you're not that much weirder than the rest of us, in the grand scheme of things. :)
Hazy profile? I take it that wearing the uniform of Al Qaeda, wielding the arms of Al Qaeda, attending their camps and taking an actual position in Al Qaeda still defines it as a "hazy profile"?
Are you privy to the secret criteria for the signature strikes? Because no one knows, since, you know, they are secret. These are based on "patterns of suspicious behaviour". If you don't think this is hazy, well there's nothing I can say to convince you. You might be mistaking the signature strikes for those strikes against people which the government at least knows the name.
If no one knows, then you don't know. And if you don't know then asserting that you or I might be the target of such strikes is assinine.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If no one knows, then you don't know. And if you don't know then asserting that you or I might be the target of such strikes is assinine.
There's no need to assert that. I need only to assert the immorality and indefensibility of establishing secret criteria for murdering people.
Citizen X, you can look at the other thread to see which arguments I've already used. Or you can reinvent the wheel, your call.
And this is why Doodlebug has more of an effect on politics by handing out commie newspapers, and not voting, than any of us who think posting on RPG message boards is a game-changer.Vive le Galt!: The Musical Interlude
Look, never mind your attribution, I'm pretty sure it was Dicey that said that.
If it were indefensible you couldn't defend it.
To wit: perhaps explaining the reason, in itself, would constitute a breach of national security.
If it were indefensible you couldn't defend it.
To wit: perhaps explaining the reason, in itself, would constitute a breach of national security.
Or, perhaps, it would be embarrassing and paint the administration in a bad light. It might uncover war crimes. But we can't tell, since it is secret, right? ;)