Everyone needs an enemy, sort of

[Nephew Twiddleton]

For the Aneristic Illusions part of the Jack of All Threads challenge.

Once upon a time back in 2002 I switched my party affiliation from Democrat to Green. I had just gotten so fed up with the candidates the party kept putting up, both in their campaigning and in the issues that I had to go with what I wanted. I voted Democrat and registered Democrat in 2000 as well as the 2002 primaries, and had rooted for the Democratic party when I was too young to vote. But I wasn't really voting for Democrats. I was voting against Republicans. And that's not really voting.

When I switched to the Green Party my family and friends treated it with a bit of derisive or dismissive humor. Jill Stein's not going to win, you know. Hey are you voting for Nader? Wait, you have a guy running against Nader? You're voting for that lesbian, right? You really shouldn't be throwing your vote away like that. Then of course they would admit that they happened to agree with Jill Stein or Ralph Nader, or whoever was on the Green ticket on a particular election cycle. Moreover, that they tended to agree with them more than the candidate that they were actually supporting. Well, why don't you fucking vote for them? Because they're not going to win.

No shit. Because everyone thinks that way. I'm starting to think that we should infiltrate the Democratic Party like the psychotic Tea Party Libertarians have done with the Republican Party.  But of course that wouldn't work. Because people expect crazy from conservatives of all shades. We're used to it. We're more likely to vote for them the crazier they are. But we like our liberals to be calm and bland. We punish liberals for showing any sort of excitability (looking at you Howard Dean). Imagine what would happen if all of a sudden the Democratic Party was flooded with real Socialists, Communists, Hippies, Pacifists, Legalizits, Environmentalists, etc... instead of pandering Republicans that believe in woman's choice and gun control. It would be kind of nice to give a scary enemy a scary enemy that lives up to their fears. Democrats have an enemy. Republicans have a nerdy wuss to beat up on for being queer. Well that's not exactly true, they have a hoarde of psychopaths lead by an Alaskan robot and a weird looking Mormon with a chalk fetish leading them to be afraid of. Except the enemy of my enemy is not my friend in this scenario.

Well, looks like I'm wasting my vote again this year, one way or the other. The illusion of progress and rationality after an 8 year nightmare was nice while it lasted.

Discuss.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Maybe to better spark discussion, since the OP was kind of in rant format explore one of the ideas brought up in it

Like, maybe, since I live in a state like Massachusetts, if I vote for who I want for president, I'm throwing my vote away because they're not going to win. If I voted Republican, that Republican is still not winning, if I vote for a Democrat I don't want to vote for, I'm throwing my vote away, but am voting for the person who's going to carry Massachusetts anyway.

Or another, why is it ok to be crazy if you're conservative, but not if you're liberal?

How effective is party infiltration?

[Brotep]

why is it ok to be crazy if you're conservative, but not if you're liberal?

Because conservative news is for the lulz.
Because liberal news only laughs ironically. Bitterly. In order to not cry.

We say it again and again, and I will say it once more yet:
The Democrats can't seem to do anything but point out how loony the Republicans are, and this is not an effective strategy.

While everyone wants to feel righteous indignation coursing through them, most are too lazy and indifferent to make anything but a nominal commitment to get it. Serious reflection is just too much work and not enough fun.

This is the Yeatsean Apocalypse, where the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity. Because mindless enthrallment is the new god of the conservative, equanimity for the sake of careful, cautious analysis has become the god of the liberal.


Result? Tea Party.




I blame instant gratification, I blame mass media, I blame people for having too little imagination, too little drive.

[Salty]

Democrats aren't weak and (positively) ineffective because they lack ability. They're that way because they, and their sponsors want it to be that way.

Imagine what would happen if all of a sudden the Democratic Party was flooded with real Socialists, Communists, Hippies, Pacifists, Legalizits, Environmentalists, etc... instead of pandering Republicans that believe in woman's choice and gun control.

They'd get greedy or complacent or both. They'd have drug scandals and sex scandals. They'd fuck shit up real bad too, if the money would allow them get far enough. Those people are assholes just like the assholes in charge simply because humans are an asshole-prone species.

The solution lies, as always, in a redeeming, cleansing, never ending rain of fire.

Alty,
No political nuance, and hopes the Tea Party gets fucking rolling so we can do this thing.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

One of the things that I do kind of appreciate about the Tea Party movement is the anti-incumbency that comes with it. Not that I have any particular problem with incumbents, but if they get too comfortable in their jobs they end up saying what they have to to appease their constituency and then do nothing about it. That happens on both sides of the isle.

Despite the fact that they drive me absolutely nuts, I also appreciate their presence, at the very least for the lulz, and at the most because it shows that people can still get motivated to do something.  You know, as long as they aren't liberal that is...

I think part of the problem is that you get two kinds of liberals. People who vote for their candidate and think they did enough, and the only reason why things aren't getting done is because of those damn conservatives, instead of actually blaming their candidate for not doing enough.
I realize that politics is a complicated game, but even still, once you're a career politician the main goal is to stay in the game and not necessarily win it.

The other problem is that you get college campus liberals who are generally good about getting riled up enough to stage a protest, which of course, accomplishes nothing.

[Rumckle]

The other problem is that you get college campus liberals who are generally good about getting riled up enough to stage a protest, which of course, accomplishes nothing.

Which, could be why most liberals are apathetic, they gave a damn while they were in college, but no-on listened, so after a while they became cynical, and stopped giving a damn. If that cycle could be broken, perhaps there would be a new movement.

When I switched to the Green Party my family and friends treated it with a bit of derisive or dismissive humor. Jill Stein's not going to win, you know. Hey are you voting for Nader? Wait, you have a guy running against Nader? You're voting for that lesbian, right? You really shouldn't be throwing your vote away like that. Then of course they would admit that they happened to agree with Jill Stein or Ralph Nader, or whoever was on the Green ticket on a particular election cycle. Moreover, that they tended to agree with them more than the candidate that they were actually supporting. Well, why don't you fucking vote for them? Because they're not going to win.

That is kinda annoying as well, I'm not exactly sure how shit works in the US, but by that logical I shouldn't even bother voting in the House of Reps at all here, because it is such a Labor safe seat (last time I checked I think Labor held the seat by about 13% that is even after the massive nationwide swing against them). And there are heaps of safe seats all over the country, so by that logic, no matter what party you vote for, you are always throwing your vote away.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The other problem is that you get college campus liberals who are generally good about getting riled up enough to stage a protest, which of course, accomplishes nothing.

Which, could be why most liberals are apathetic, they gave a damn while they were in college, but no-on listened, so after a while they became cynical, and stopped giving a damn. If that cycle could be broken, perhaps there would be a new movement.

When I switched to the Green Party my family and friends treated it with a bit of derisive or dismissive humor. Jill Stein's not going to win, you know. Hey are you voting for Nader? Wait, you have a guy running against Nader? You're voting for that lesbian, right? You really shouldn't be throwing your vote away like that. Then of course they would admit that they happened to agree with Jill Stein or Ralph Nader, or whoever was on the Green ticket on a particular election cycle. Moreover, that they tended to agree with them more than the candidate that they were actually supporting. Well, why don't you fucking vote for them? Because they're not going to win.

That is kinda annoying as well, I'm not exactly sure how shit works in the US, but by that logical I shouldn't even bother voting in the House of Reps at all here, because it is such a Labor safe seat (last time I checked I think Labor held the seat by about 13% that is even after the massive nationwide swing against them). And there are heaps of safe seats all over the country, so by that logic, no matter what party you vote for, you are always throwing your vote away.

Part 1- Probably a good a idea. Perhaps getting young liberals to change their tactics to get more attention?

Part 2- That's exactly what I tell anyone who pooh pooh's my third party vote. Then I tell them it's people like them who prevent third party candidates from being viable. In MA we're solidly Democratic in national level politics and strongly favoring Democrats (and incumbents) in state elections. And even then our Republicans tend to be socially liberal. So it doesn't really matter at all if you vote in a non-swing state. On the bright side, the Greens do better on state level elections, because of the fact that often the incumbent Democrat state rep, or treasurer, or fill in political office here, doesn't have a Republican challenger. Then people become okay with voting for Green. I imagine a lot more people are actually Green, but are afraid of the big bad Republican party. Greens and Libertarians are also not usually included in the gubernatorial debates because, well, they're not going to win, so why should we listen to what they have to say.

It makes absolutely no sense. If we had a popular vote for president, then I could see the case being made for vote siphoning. Maybe. But definitely not under the electoral system. And then the not including in the debates thing is ridiculous. It's all circular logic. I'm not going to listen to them because they're not going to win, I'm not going to vote for them because they're not going to win. See? I was right they didn't win x 95% of the population.

But of course, who expects 95% of the population to have a whole lot of sense, or understanding of how the system works?

[the last yatto]

 Don't third parties need like five percent of the popular vote to qualify for public funds?



Eta: yep and that's quite the hurdle, as Perot was at the peak of activity with eight percent.
Nader didn't help much either with many blaming him for Bush winning. Not like global warming would have done better you know how those lesser evils are, there might be a chance for a viable third party. Heck there was that one online caucus was forumed but outside of social networks no one knew about it, can't even remeber the name of the damn thing. Only attempt I know to create a party out of the leftovers from the corpate table

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Don't third parties need like five percent of the popular vote to qualify for public funds?



Eta: yep and that's quite the hurdle, as Perot was at the peak of activity with eight percent.
Nader didn't help much either with many blaming him for Bush winning. Not like global warming would have done better you know how those lesser evils are, there might be a chance for a viable third party. Heck there was that one online caucus was forumed but outside of social networks no one knew about it, can't even remeber the name of the damn thing. Only attempt I know to create a party out of the leftovers from the corpate table

Locally, the Green Party candidate for state treasurer pulled 19% of the vote. We always seem to do better during a midterm election, based on ideas like what you mention- blaming Nader for Bush's win. People assume that without a third candidate, those votes would automatically go to Gore or Kerry. Never mind that Nader also ran against Clinton and Obama, and will probably run in 2012.

Of course that's really just the Dems trying to shift the blame for their campaign inadequacies to someone who was high profile but got very little of the vote anyway. And the voting Democrats accept that because they still don't seem to understand the fact that the electoral college prevents that sort of thing.

Long story short, the reason a Democrat loses an election is because they campaign like a Democrat, not because of any spoiler votes. We didn't have anyone run for Ted Kennedy's vacant seat, and Martha Coakley still lost an election that she could have easily won, if she did something.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

As an fyi- the MA gunernatorial debates are on tonight. The characters of this play will be:

Governor Deval Patrick, Democrat
Charlie Baker, Republican
Tim Cahill, Independent
Jill Stein, Green-Rainbow Party of MA (Green Party USA affiliate)

Will let you all know how it goes, as impartially as possible.

[Doktor Howl]

So, you left one ism for another ism.

My heartiest congratulations.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So, you left one ism for another ism.

My heartiest congratulations.

They reflect my political views, and party enrollment numbers can affect party status. Makes sense to me if I would like to see the growth of viable third parties and I happen to agree with one of them.

[Doktor Howl]

So, you left one ism for another ism.

My heartiest congratulations.

They reflect my political views, and party enrollment numbers can affect party status. Makes sense to me if I would like to see the growth of viable third parties and I happen to agree with one of them.

I'm jealous.  There is no party that reflects my political views.  Except for that one Japanese guy, and - as he noted - he can't run.

But you're going to be disappointed in the whole concept of 3rd parties.  Duverger's Law allows for no exceptions.  And just because the 3rd parties are funnier, doesn't mean they're better.  If the Greens replaced the Dems, they'd pretty much instantly become a carbon copy of the Dems.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So, you left one ism for another ism.

My heartiest congratulations.

They reflect my political views, and party enrollment numbers can affect party status. Makes sense to me if I would like to see the growth of viable third parties and I happen to agree with one of them.

I'm jealous.  There is no party that reflects my political views.  Except for that one Japanese guy, and - as he noted - he can't run.

But you're going to be disappointed in the whole concept of 3rd parties.  Duverger's Law allows for no exceptions.  And just because the 3rd parties are funnier, doesn't mean they're better.  If the Greens replaced the Dems, they'd pretty much instantly become a carbon copy of the Dems.

Perhaps, politics is always more about playing the game than getting things done. But it might be fun to watch in the meantime.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

First break in the debates. So far it's basically been about taxes. Best quotes so far come from Cahill and Stein

At one point after Gov. Patrick and Baker spent some time arguing back and forth, Cahill was asked his opinion and said: "I'm going to let these two fight it out."

Jill Stein countered a statement Baker had made with "I was in this same debate 8 years ago (when she ran against Romney and others), the debate hasn't changed"