My impression is that what should be simple (always “genocide no”) gets much more mealy-mouthed (e.g. “I’m totally pro Israel…but maybe let’s rein in the genocide…oh no I don’t mean Israel shouldn’t have the right to defend itself!") precisely when anyone who wishes to do good by getting elected is confronted with the reality that there’s a rampaging nationalist organization sandbagging and bullying candidates, promoting others for policy favors and effectively holding big chunks of the electorate hostage in elections.
In practice, that means when I see otherwise good candidates use their talking points or be evasive and spineless on the topic of Israel, I’m quicker to think that they might simply have chosen a different battle, than to think they actually believe that there’s nothing wrong.
More simply, if standing up to the nationalist bully will almost certainly end their career/role/office before they even had a chance to begin, how many do you think will divert from the issues they entered politics for just to be the one to take out the bully? I’m guessing it’s a small number.
So while I do see it as cowardly on a personal level, and personally I’d prefer to quit politics than to get pushed around and just hold my tongue or say their lines, I also assume that it’s a decision made under duress without further evidence to the contrary.
In short, calling candidates “pro genocide” and expecting individual candidates to take the bully head-on in any particular race feels unfair to me, or at least misguided since, if we actually want to change this situation, my generation really needs to have some frank chats with their parents about their AIPAC donations.
I don’t think you’re wrong, what I think is that this is exactly the problem. On every actually important topic, what are any candidate’s options here? Be vocal and get destroyed by the establishment immediately? Keep quiet and wait for an opportunity to fix things later, that will never ever come? Keep quiet for so long that you get your brain scrambled by “working within the system” and lose every ideal you ever held? From precedent those sure seem like the only things that ever happen. If there are no options that actually work at all, then I’ll at least prefer the candidate who will say “genocide bad”.
Electoralism is a bandaid solution at best in the first place, but the bandaid isn’t even effective if you just play ball. Assume every last politician is suspect, demand the moon, brook no compromise, terrorize whoever happens to be in office into submission. FDR didn’t do the New Deal because he believed in it, he did it as a milquetoast compromise to an organized, insistent, threatening populace.
At least that’s what I think, anyway… This sort of thing.
you are missing all the other issues that were swirling around her as a candidate, but may have been swallowed, up until she double tapped her self on live tv backing a genocide and the wealthy that are currently sacking the nation, after the dnc attempted to push biden again who was also for the same reasons not popular AND doing it so late that they could push to skip a primary.
from a party that is doing its best to help the right while thinly claiming ignoreance.
I actually wasn’t considering Harris on this really at all but of course she’s the go to example usually, even though she’s now forever unelectable. I guess in my head she lost for many other reasons altogether greater in sum than Gaza.
But really I was referring to the much greater problem we’re facing right this moment not in the past. Would-be Dem politicians are right now facing battles with AIPAC supremacy.
I’ll just use Mamdani since we’re just getting things off the ground here. That took record breaking grassroots activism and was still use one upset in a long history of utter domination. AIPAC’s batting average is still ferocious.
Any blue candidate is liable to face them in some way. With Mamdani it simply wasn’t relevant to the job he was applying for and he stuck to that, bless him, and NYers believed him. Mazel. But dammit if they didn’t try to make his stance on Israel THE deciding factor of the election.
You could say Mamdani was a coward for not taking on the genocide in Gaza more fully. It’s true. But my question was specifically “is that really what we need from candidates this year?”
Because right now are tons of candidates right now being similarly put in these weird gotcha tribunals interviews and debates about allegiance to a foreign nation, albeit an ally, when IR and diplomacy is 100% irrelevant to the job they’re even running for. Is it really every candidate’s job to take a stance?
i would say that the gaza situation is a litmus test on the morals of any candidate. any candidate who would defend what we have done to others for israel can not be trusted in matters of morality, a trait that can not ever be permitted access to power in any means, and any power they currently have must be stripped from them.
sorry, but defense of continued genocide is a total non starter.
as for needing to appeal to Aipac money? if that is what is needed to win elections, then the cause is long ago lost at reforming the US via non violent means. but i dont think it is.
i think the argument is the available candidates think it is true more so then accusing you of believing it. and after today i have to admit i was lying about thinking violence would not be necessary, mainly told to not have to spend forever arguing over accelerationism. but after today…. i don’t think i care for the charade any longer
My impression is that what should be simple (always “genocide no”) gets much more mealy-mouthed (e.g. “I’m totally pro Israel…but maybe let’s rein in the genocide…oh no I don’t mean Israel shouldn’t have the right to defend itself!") precisely when anyone who wishes to do good by getting elected is confronted with the reality that there’s a rampaging nationalist organization sandbagging and bullying candidates, promoting others for policy favors and effectively holding big chunks of the electorate hostage in elections.
In practice, that means when I see otherwise good candidates use their talking points or be evasive and spineless on the topic of Israel, I’m quicker to think that they might simply have chosen a different battle, than to think they actually believe that there’s nothing wrong.
More simply, if standing up to the nationalist bully will almost certainly end their career/role/office before they even had a chance to begin, how many do you think will divert from the issues they entered politics for just to be the one to take out the bully? I’m guessing it’s a small number.
So while I do see it as cowardly on a personal level, and personally I’d prefer to quit politics than to get pushed around and just hold my tongue or say their lines, I also assume that it’s a decision made under duress without further evidence to the contrary.
In short, calling candidates “pro genocide” and expecting individual candidates to take the bully head-on in any particular race feels unfair to me, or at least misguided since, if we actually want to change this situation, my generation really needs to have some frank chats with their parents about their AIPAC donations.
What am I missing?
Edit: typos swype errors missing words
I don’t think you’re wrong, what I think is that this is exactly the problem. On every actually important topic, what are any candidate’s options here? Be vocal and get destroyed by the establishment immediately? Keep quiet and wait for an opportunity to fix things later, that will never ever come? Keep quiet for so long that you get your brain scrambled by “working within the system” and lose every ideal you ever held? From precedent those sure seem like the only things that ever happen. If there are no options that actually work at all, then I’ll at least prefer the candidate who will say “genocide bad”.
Electoralism is a bandaid solution at best in the first place, but the bandaid isn’t even effective if you just play ball. Assume every last politician is suspect, demand the moon, brook no compromise, terrorize whoever happens to be in office into submission. FDR didn’t do the New Deal because he believed in it, he did it as a milquetoast compromise to an organized, insistent, threatening populace.
At least that’s what I think, anyway… This sort of thing.
you are missing all the other issues that were swirling around her as a candidate, but may have been swallowed, up until she double tapped her self on live tv backing a genocide and the wealthy that are currently sacking the nation, after the dnc attempted to push biden again who was also for the same reasons not popular AND doing it so late that they could push to skip a primary.
from a party that is doing its best to help the right while thinly claiming ignoreance.
I actually wasn’t considering Harris on this really at all but of course she’s the go to example usually, even though she’s now forever unelectable. I guess in my head she lost for many other reasons altogether greater in sum than Gaza.
But really I was referring to the much greater problem we’re facing right this moment not in the past. Would-be Dem politicians are right now facing battles with AIPAC supremacy.
I’ll just use Mamdani since we’re just getting things off the ground here. That took record breaking grassroots activism and was still use one upset in a long history of utter domination. AIPAC’s batting average is still ferocious.
Any blue candidate is liable to face them in some way. With Mamdani it simply wasn’t relevant to the job he was applying for and he stuck to that, bless him, and NYers believed him. Mazel. But dammit if they didn’t try to make his stance on Israel THE deciding factor of the election.
You could say Mamdani was a coward for not taking on the genocide in Gaza more fully. It’s true. But my question was specifically “is that really what we need from candidates this year?”
Because right now are tons of candidates right now being similarly put in these weird gotcha tribunals interviews and debates about allegiance to a foreign nation, albeit an ally, when IR and diplomacy is 100% irrelevant to the job they’re even running for. Is it really every candidate’s job to take a stance?
i would say that the gaza situation is a litmus test on the morals of any candidate. any candidate who would defend what we have done to others for israel can not be trusted in matters of morality, a trait that can not ever be permitted access to power in any means, and any power they currently have must be stripped from them.
sorry, but defense of continued genocide is a total non starter.
as for needing to appeal to Aipac money? if that is what is needed to win elections, then the cause is long ago lost at reforming the US via non violent means. but i dont think it is.
100% on all counts. But to clarify I definitely wasn’t saying appeal to AIPAC, and I’m pretty sure you’re smart enough to know that.
Edit: which is an unsubtle way of saying “that last bit was bad faith must-win-internet-argument behavior. you know it. feel bad.”
i think the argument is the available candidates think it is true more so then accusing you of believing it. and after today i have to admit i was lying about thinking violence would not be necessary, mainly told to not have to spend forever arguing over accelerationism. but after today…. i don’t think i care for the charade any longer
That’s already begun. Rope-a-dope is effective. We will win.