881
Please, for the love of God, VOTE!
(pawb.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
881 points (86.7% liked)
Political Memes
5487 readers
2423 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That isn't really an adequate comparison, is it? Germany was a parliamentary democracy at the time, are you asking if id have voted for the SDP or KDP? Are you suggesting having two parties split the NSDAP opposition vote is what lead to their accent to power? Or are you asking I'd be protesting Hindenburg to take more direct action against the NSDAP or more firmly address the crisis that lead to their growth?
If anything I think the most apt comparison is between Biden and Hindenburg: they're both staunchly centrist and both beholden to conservative interests. Personally, I think both Biden and Hindenburg legitimized reactionary concerns by playing into them, and I think there's evidence that helped the NSDAP accent.
But the thing that makes our situation so much different is that Biden isn't splitting the vote with another party, he's in command of the only opposition to Trump. Pushing his politics left to address the underlying concerns of the populists is probably the only thing within our power. He needs to solidify his coalition, not sit on the fence like Hindenburg did.
Precisely yes (or not voted at all if you felt no party really was representative of you properly)
Yes, in addition to splitting the political energy in general
I'm suggesting that the communists spending energy opposing the SDP and Hindenburg for fairly valid reasons, when there were much more pressing threats to the safety and security of the entire world including themselves to spend that energy on, made their concerns about the establishment left (however valid) laughable in restrospect.
It sounds to me like you're saying that splitting the vote between Biden and nobody (by not voting) is a good thing to do, to push him to the left. I fail to see how that is a better idea than splitting the vote between the SDP and KDP, and I think the results can potentially be pretty similar.
It sounds like you really, really don't want to answer this question plainly. Would your logic also apply to refusing to support the SDP (or for that matter Hindenburg) against Hitler?
This is where our disagreement is. I don't think the rise of the NSDAP was a result of the SDP splitting the vote with the KDP, I think it was the failure of the SDP and Hindenburg to address the crisis that pushed the country into reactionary politics to begin with. You could just as easily blame the SDP for not joining the KDP instead, since the KDP was reacting to the same failures of government the voters of the NSDAP were.
I especially don't attribute blame to citizen voters supporting the KDP, because not only does that not matter as much in a parliamentary system, they're also reacting to the same failures of government that the NSDAP were.
So no, I don't find that argument convincing, and I likely would not have supported the SDP given the availability of other options.
Id also point out that it was Hindenburg who appointed Hitler as chancellor. That should be evidence enough that KDP voters were right to challenge his position in the presidential election in the lead up to the parliamentary election.
Yes, absolutely. Responsibility can be shared; almost any big disaster is a result of multiple overlapping causes where any number of people could have taken action to make it less likely or prevent it.
In fact, I think the Democrats are a lot more responsible for creating the conditions that led to the rise of Trump than the SDP. The SDP at least had genuine hardship imposed on their country from outside, whereas the establishment Democrats ever since the 1990s have simply been selling out the working class, in an economy that's raking in money hand over fist, because they could and they assumed that nothing bad would ever come of it (to anyone that they thought mattered.)
Okay, that's fair. But what if there weren't other options? If we used a parliamentary system in the US, and we were talking about voting for the Democrats or else a genuine leftist party, I would be 100% in agreement with you about voting for the left instead of the Democrats.
What if Germany used the FPTP system, and you were voting for Hindenburg or Hitler directly to lead the country? Do you think that someone in that hypothetical election who refused to vote for Hindenburg in 1932, because he hadn't done enough to earn the vote, would still feel justified in that decision in 1945?
(Biden isn't Hindenburg; Hindenburg doesn't have a direct analogue but he would be more someone like John McCain IMO, but that's not directly relevant to the question I don't think.)
I wouldn't be committing to voting for Hindenburg 7 months before casting a ballot, especially if doing so not only doesn't address the underlying problem that created the NSPD's popularity but would also likely continue to contribute to those conditions.
You're also assuming that Hindenburg would have won a second election against Hitler, and I don't think that's a given. Nor do I think Biden winning against Trump is a given either, when he's still contributing to the conditions that brought popularity to Trump. He's done quite a lot to undermine his own campaign message, and those of us telling him he's gon a loose if he doesn't reverse course are actually helping him, assuming he takes the opportunity he's being given.
Protesting biden now wouldn't be effective if we all -publicly- got in line and said "we'll sure, he's complicit in genocide but we're all still voting for him anyway". That would be quite a dumb way to protest and put pressure on him to get anything done, wouldn't you say?
Yeah, I feel you on this. I think we're just looking at it from two different perspectives.
I don't think Biden's on Lemmy. I'm not looking at this like he's going to read my messages and think "Okay I got mozz locked in, I don't have to change my Gaza policy now." I'm just saying my thought process out loud; I'm going to vote for Hindenburg instead of Hitler pretty much whatever else happens. I'm not trying to do some kind of bluff where I claim that I'm undecided as a way of putting pressure on, not explicitly telling the Biden campaign that I'm committed to him, so that he'll be forced into different behavior patterns on Gaza.
But the other way does make sense to me. Like the "uncommitted" voters in the primary, or protests at his events because he's abetting mass murder, that makes sense to me. If I were directly in contact with Biden, would I try to do this artifice of pretending I was undecided because of Gaza, that even though Trump is directly supportive of monsters who are 10 times worse and more powerful than Netanyahu, abetting Netanyahu is so bad that I might not vote for Biden? So as to put more pressure on him to change his policy? IDK, maybe. I am not a political specialist but it seems like maybe that's a sensible way to do it.
Yeah, I get that. I do think that direct action on Gaza is probably more effective than just typing out on Lemmy that you're uncommitted in your voting, and I think doing the latter (if it's a bluff, which it would be in my case) runs a little bit of a risk of some other voter reading it and taking it seriously and being swayed to not vote for Biden and abetting mass murder much much worse than that in Gaza. But basically, the core of what you're saying, it does make sense to me, yes.
This is what makes a protest effective. This is why I've been quoting mlk and Douglass and Malcolm x. If there's no threat of harm then no liberty will ever be granted.
Seems to me like you simply don't believe this particular cause is worth threatening this particular harm. Which is fine I guess, but it just makes your claims of caring about it sound a lot like white liberals in 1963 telling mlk 'sure, we agree, but now's not the time, not like this'.
Were making it everyone's problem by protesting, that's the point.
Very wrong. I just don't believe that risking Trump getting elected will help this particular cause. I think there's an significant chance -- I am 100% serious about this -- that the United States would come out at the end of it with an apartheid regime for Arabs similar to Israel's. I think there's an excellent chance that Israel would be emboldened by Trump to actually go in and literally kill all the Palestinians, completing the genocide. I think Trump's election would be catastrophic for the Palestinians, far worse than today, in addition to a long list of other people it would be catastrophic for.
That's why I brought up so many times the example of Boutwell vs Connor. Applying pressure to Boutwell sounds great. Refusing to support him in his election against Connor, because he's a segregationist, doesn't make any fucking sense. It seems like you keep insisting that I object to the first, when I don't and keep telling you that I don't. What I object to is the second. Surely that difference makes some sense?
That's almost exactly what I said. And I agree, it won't be effective [e.g. 'help' this particular cause] if libs keep running cover for his campaign regardless of what he does.
Nothing I've said about protesting until the election has changed. Being loud so other people see the lack of support raises the stakes for Biden so he is compelled to reason.
Like I said, you don't think the risk is worth the cause, that's fine.
Yeah, I get that. Makes sense to me.
Not exactly. A different way to say it would be, the cause is so important and the risk to the Palestinian people (among many others) so potentially catastrophic if Trump wins, that I'm hesitant to support this strategy. But yeah I get where you're coming from.