From my perspective (and without reading the book), Ralph Nader is promoting very ineffectual action.
His group basically created the Freedom of Information Act, Clean Water Act, OSHA, Whistleblower Protection Act, among other things.
Is that enough? Fuck no, you’re right about that. But I feel like if we had a few hundred people doing that level of change, we would actually be able to do some of these things like getting money out of politics that are actually what’s needed.
getting an establishment neoliberal (who is likely to run as a moderate) to budge on specific policy changes is frankly insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country.
Okay. I mean, I completely agree with that statement, sure. Is refusing to vote for that same neoliberal sufficient action to change our trajectory as a country? Seems like that is even more ineffectual, if that’s the metric.
His group basically created the Freedom of Information Act, Clean Water Act, OSHA, Whistleblower Protection Act, among other things.
Which are all unfortunately not quite as effective in practice as they were intended to be, but you make a valid point regardless. These things are obviously desirable developments and are effectual - hence my edit to the part you quoted before I saw your response (ineffectual -> what Ralph Nader is advocating for isn’t enough in the present day).
But I feel like if we had a few hundred people doing that level of change, we would actually be able to do some of these things like getting money out of politics that are actually what’s needed.
I’d like to see that happen and I would appreciate the strategy and organization of such grassroots initiatives.
Is refusing to vote for that same neoliberal sufficient action to change our trajectory as a country? Seems like that is even more ineffectual, if that’s the metric.
I think it’s desirable that candidates be pressured to really dig deep to be the leader we need and run on that - especially years out from an election.
I feel that lesser evil rhetoric is undesirable, unnecessary, and is part of the reason why we have the gun to our heads. Vote for the status quo or something very close to it - or get Hitler. It doesn’t feel like democracy to me.
As the other commenter suggested, state-level electoral reform in blue states (such as California) could be enacted so voters are free to vote for whoever they want without spoiling. It’d be a massive step in the right direction and it’d likely get more people to turn out to the voting booths.
Is refusing to vote for that same neoliberal sufficient action to change our trajectory as a country? Seems like that is even more ineffectual, if that’s the metric.
I think it’s desirable that candidates be pressured to really dig deep to be the leader we need and run on that - especially years out from an election.
Yes. That’s why I specifically proposed a way of doing it that might be effective. No idea why you are lecturing me about how important it is.
I feel that lesser evil rhetoric is undesirable, unnecessary, and is part of the reason why we have the gun to our heads.
I feel that “lesser evil isn’t a valid argument” rhetoric is part of how we got ourselves in the current screaming disaster, honestly.
How someone could be living in the year of our lord 2025 and still be out here going “OH LET’S NOT HEAR THAT TIRED OLD CHESTNUT OF ‘LESSER EVIL’” is beyond me…
I’m just saying that “HOW DARE YOU VOTE” is taking us backwards, not forwards. Read back my original message. I’m actually giving my take on how it is that you might be able to better force the politicians in power to better represent the will of the people by threatening them to lose elections if they don’t.
It didn’t matter. You still gave me the whole script about how I was blah blah blah for suggesting that we have to vote for blah blah blah.
And I’m not saying that at all. Everybody is free to vote or not vote however they wish as far as I’m concerned.
It didn’t matter.
And I agreed with your suggestion for voting blocs and said I’d appreciate that sort of action. I disagreed with your advocacy for lesser evil rhetoric, unless I’m misunderstanding your position. I believe that it kills discourse and makes unpopular candidates run on status quo policy confidently.
You still gave me the whole script
There was no script. I appreciate you engaging. You are free to disagree with my perspective and see things however you wish.
You were the one who started using particular rhetoric of a variety that I consider to be not the most accurate or relevant way to look at it. The Hitler example indicates why. I certainly wasn’t the one who brought up “lesser evil” way of looking at it. “Earn my vote” is another of those little encapsulated phrases for a way of looking at it that is just bonkers to me. These politicians are not your friends, and voting for them is not doing them a favor. They mostly make money either way. They’ll be fine. Getting the policies of the country and the governance more sensible and human is the goal.
I think I explained what I do advocate for already, and what I would consider as a more productive way of looking at it that isn’t quite as subject to being hijacked by people who just don’t want left-wing people to vote.
You were the one who started using particular rhetoric of a variety that I consider incredibly disingenuous.
The US is a representative democracy. Elections are held for candidates to represent potential voters in an attempt to win the election.
I was the first to mention “lesser evil”, but it was in direct response to you using that rhetoric specifically in 2025 - unless my reading comprehension is lacking (which it may be).
I’m not being disingenuous. I’m supporting people’s choice to vote however they wish and encouraging politicians to flexibly respond (i.e. represent Americans). I feel that these two things are fundamental to a healthy democracy.
My country treats progressives and anybody to the left of the Democrats as terrorists - they refuse to negotiate.
Progressives and leftists are willing to negotiate, but discourse is killed, public opinion is actively shaped to smear opposing voices and to delegitimize them, literally any meaningful change is seen as unrealistic or radical, and so forth.
I was the first to mention “lesser evil”, but it was in direct response to you using that rhetoric specifically in 2025 - unless my reading comprehension is lacking (which it may be).
It is. You said that coherently advocating for politicians to adhere to better policies, with credible threats of electoral consequences if they don’t, was “insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country.” I mean, that is true, definitely. I pointed out that just not voting is definitely also insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country. Which is also true (even more so).
Then you started talking about “lesser evil.” For what reason, I don’t know, it had literally nothing at all to do with what I actually said. Actually, what I was saying at that point was pretty much the opposite of “lesser evil.”
That’s why I talked about “the whole script.” You guys seem to have a particular thing you like to say, and a particular way you like to respond when someone disagrees with you, even if it doesn’t make sense. Good luck with it I guess, but please find someone else to do it at in the future.
How someone could be living in the year of our lord 2025 and still be out here going “OH LET’S NOT HEAR THAT TIRED OLD CHESTNUT OF ‘LESSER EVIL’” is beyond me…
Because it’s clear that “lesser evil” has hit a wall. It’s not an effective strategy and hasn’t been for the past three election cycles. Biden only got in by a hair, and that took promising a bunch of stuff he never had any intention of actually doing.
His group basically created the Freedom of Information Act, Clean Water Act, OSHA, Whistleblower Protection Act, among other things.
Is that enough? Fuck no, you’re right about that. But I feel like if we had a few hundred people doing that level of change, we would actually be able to do some of these things like getting money out of politics that are actually what’s needed.
Okay. I mean, I completely agree with that statement, sure. Is refusing to vote for that same neoliberal sufficient action to change our trajectory as a country? Seems like that is even more ineffectual, if that’s the metric.
Which are all unfortunately not quite as effective in practice as they were intended to be, but you make a valid point regardless. These things are obviously desirable developments and are effectual - hence my edit to the part you quoted before I saw your response (ineffectual -> what Ralph Nader is advocating for isn’t enough in the present day).
I’d like to see that happen and I would appreciate the strategy and organization of such grassroots initiatives.
I think it’s desirable that candidates be pressured to really dig deep to be the leader we need and run on that - especially years out from an election.
I feel that lesser evil rhetoric is undesirable, unnecessary, and is part of the reason why we have the gun to our heads. Vote for the status quo or something very close to it - or get Hitler. It doesn’t feel like democracy to me.
As the other commenter suggested, state-level electoral reform in blue states (such as California) could be enacted so voters are free to vote for whoever they want without spoiling. It’d be a massive step in the right direction and it’d likely get more people to turn out to the voting booths.
Yes. That’s why I specifically proposed a way of doing it that might be effective. No idea why you are lecturing me about how important it is.
I feel that “lesser evil isn’t a valid argument” rhetoric is part of how we got ourselves in the current screaming disaster, honestly.
How someone could be living in the year of our lord 2025 and still be out here going “OH LET’S NOT HEAR THAT TIRED OLD CHESTNUT OF ‘LESSER EVIL’” is beyond me…
In 2020, we elected the lesser evil, a self-proclaimed Zionist, who ended up aiding in the genocide of an occupied people.
If the lesser evil is aiding in modern atrocities that you and I absolutely cannot fathom living through, what the fuck are we doing as a society?
Not enough, apparently.
I’m just saying that “HOW DARE YOU VOTE” is taking us backwards, not forwards. Read back my original message. I’m actually giving my take on how it is that you might be able to better force the politicians in power to better represent the will of the people by threatening them to lose elections if they don’t.
It didn’t matter. You still gave me the whole script about how I was blah blah blah for suggesting that we have to vote for blah blah blah.
Whatever man
And I’m not saying that at all. Everybody is free to vote or not vote however they wish as far as I’m concerned.
And I agreed with your suggestion for voting blocs and said I’d appreciate that sort of action. I disagreed with your advocacy for lesser evil rhetoric, unless I’m misunderstanding your position. I believe that it kills discourse and makes unpopular candidates run on status quo policy confidently.
There was no script. I appreciate you engaging. You are free to disagree with my perspective and see things however you wish.
You were the one who started using particular rhetoric of a variety that I consider to be not the most accurate or relevant way to look at it. The Hitler example indicates why. I certainly wasn’t the one who brought up “lesser evil” way of looking at it. “Earn my vote” is another of those little encapsulated phrases for a way of looking at it that is just bonkers to me. These politicians are not your friends, and voting for them is not doing them a favor. They mostly make money either way. They’ll be fine. Getting the policies of the country and the governance more sensible and human is the goal.
I think I explained what I do advocate for already, and what I would consider as a more productive way of looking at it that isn’t quite as subject to being hijacked by people who just don’t want left-wing people to vote.
The US is a representative democracy. Elections are held for candidates to represent potential voters in an attempt to win the election.
I was the first to mention “lesser evil”, but it was in direct response to you using that rhetoric specifically in 2025 - unless my reading comprehension is lacking (which it may be).
I’m not being disingenuous. I’m supporting people’s choice to vote however they wish and encouraging politicians to flexibly respond (i.e. represent Americans). I feel that these two things are fundamental to a healthy democracy.
My country treats progressives and anybody to the left of the Democrats as terrorists - they refuse to negotiate.
Progressives and leftists are willing to negotiate, but discourse is killed, public opinion is actively shaped to smear opposing voices and to delegitimize them, literally any meaningful change is seen as unrealistic or radical, and so forth.
It is. You said that coherently advocating for politicians to adhere to better policies, with credible threats of electoral consequences if they don’t, was “insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country.” I mean, that is true, definitely. I pointed out that just not voting is definitely also insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country. Which is also true (even more so).
Then you started talking about “lesser evil.” For what reason, I don’t know, it had literally nothing at all to do with what I actually said. Actually, what I was saying at that point was pretty much the opposite of “lesser evil.”
That’s why I talked about “the whole script.” You guys seem to have a particular thing you like to say, and a particular way you like to respond when someone disagrees with you, even if it doesn’t make sense. Good luck with it I guess, but please find someone else to do it at in the future.
Because it’s clear that “lesser evil” has hit a wall. It’s not an effective strategy and hasn’t been for the past three election cycles. Biden only got in by a hair, and that took promising a bunch of stuff he never had any intention of actually doing.