2022-06-23 03:09:14
I saw a post recently on Tumblr that said that everything that is happening right now in the US is the consequence of people not voting for Clinton in 2016. And it was shared by leftists too.
And, first off: no? I could get into the details as to why, but frankly I'd rather not write an essay: Clinton lost because Clinton did not convince the electorate to vote for her, and didn't make any concessions whatsoever. She could've won it and she blew it. Her loss is completely her fault. Completely. 100%. Case closed.
I think that, in general, in a situation in which you have a corrupt, technocratic neoliberal centrist on one side and a fascist on the other, you have already lost. There's absolutely no point in voting for a Biden, a Blair, a Clinton, a Renzi, a Macron, a Starmer just to stop the right. These kinds of people are exactly why we're here. Voting for them means being in denial. These people are setting the ground for fascism. They do it everyday when they ally themselves with the right, when they do everything legal and illegal to stop leftists, when they make sure leftists lose, when they give the benefit of the doubt to fascists, when they promote austerity and neoliberal policies. And when their policies turn out to be unpopular, they let the right challenge them and win, because these people are fucking morons that almost nobody actually likes.
And just to be fair, I don't think that the useful vote is always a bad idea. It's usually a centrist bs excuse for voting the neoliberal, but as a concept it makes sense: compromise now a bit just to stop the right-winger, win the next time. But if you apply it, you must make sure that the guy you're voting for ALSO won't set the perfect ground for the fascist next time around. This is exactly why it doesn't make sense in presidential elections in the US.
Secondly, you must be sure of the fact that this guy is (personally, you decide the threshold, I know I'm way too lax) at least part of the liberal left to be considered for a useful vote (and it is always a case-by-case approach) and both a genuine candidate despite being a liberal, and a generally liked person.
And finally, the useful vote can be seriously considered only when it is seen as a starting point to shift the country to the left. The candidate/politician must be able and willing to approve some socialdemocratic policies, at least, be able to show that these more leftist policies are genuine and positive, and thus both diminish the risk of a take over by the far-right, but also allow for a shift to the left.
410 viewsKozy Raccoon, edited 00:09
L
