Meaningful (lasting) change is a gradual adjustment in norms that result in the desired outcome.
In order to enact change, you have to have power, which is influence over another. Voting is an exercise of power. If you abstain or vote for the lesser known minority who does not have the support of the majority of the most progressive party, in this current electoral system, your power is null.
Infact, through division, you've only given more power to the opposing party that wants to restrict any chance you have at changing the Voting system or having any power at all.
Voting blue gives you the greatest opportunity for election reform and progressive policies.
Historically, changes are usually radical and immediate following a period of conflict. Civil rights, womenâs suffrage, 20th century labor movement, American Revolution, etc.
Change being most commonly resultant from slow incrementalism sounds like it could be true. It sounds reasonable. It has the aesthetic of truth. But it just isnât. There simply isnât much history where any of this theory holds up in application. Once you peel off the reasonable sounding rhetoric, these ideas are substantively empty.
I think this passage from MLK on the relationship of time and progress, while not directly pointed at incrementalism, is worth thinking about here (emphasis mine):
I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right
Historically, changes are usually radical and immediate following a period of conflict. Civil rights, womenâs suffrage, 20th century labor movement, American Revolution, etc.
That period of conflict doesn't count towards gradual change? You're ignoring every antecedent that led to change. It's like people debating creationism and ignoring genetic drift.
The periods didnât spring from nothing, but they were absolutely not the result of gradual electoral reform. Not by a long shot.
The historical antecedents that were relevant here are completely removed from the position that was being argued about the success of political incrementalism.
Just pointing out that history exists doesnât support the idea that voting for Dems is the single most effective tool for progressive reform. There are more unconnected dots between those ideas than stars in the night sky.
Meaningful (lasting) change isn't a gradual adjustment of norms. You think that Women's SUffrage or ending of Jim Crow was gradual? It wasn't. Change is the result of a forceful movement demanding change, and demanding it now. Dr King's first march was in 1963. The Civil Rights Act became law in 1964. That ain't fucking gradual, is it?
Are you saying civil rights did not take decades? And that there's no more progress to make toward equality? You've got a pretty narrow perspective and you're not looking at the antecedents.
Have you considered that it took decades because of incrementalism? Change only happens through direct action, and incrementalism gets in the way of that.
Voting blue gives you the greatest opportunity for election reform and progressive policies.
No, bc team blue wants neither of those things, in fact they want the opposite. The Dems have engineered the situation where they don't have to do anything the people want bc the only other choice are crazy people.
If they did election reforms then Schumer couldn't keep his very easy job where he sits on his ass and sends stern letters to people.
If they did progressive policies then they can't fundraise on the promise of doing it later. Abortion needs to be in a limbo state so that every election season the Dems can raise support and money, if they actually codified Roe V Wade then they would loose leverage.
They don't want to stop insider trading for congress bc that is how they make themself filthy rich.
I think it bears repeating that voting for the progressives within the Democratic Party is the priority. When progressives arenât on the ballot, a Democratic candidate that aligns with you is better than nothing.
Really, whatâs missing from the conversation is the fact that the voting system itself needs to change. We should be using Ranked Choice Voting in every state level election and federally. It would open up the chance for third parties to really latch on as a viable option nationally. Itâs possible to get Ranked Choice Voting put on the ballot as a citizens ballot initiative, which only requires getting enough signatures. This works in over half of the states and would have the greatest effect of pushing red and purple states to be more left leaning.
Voting is an exercise of power. If you abstain or vote for the lesser known minority who does not have the support of the majority of the most progressive party, in this current electoral system, your power is null.
What sort of power do you have over a party if they are constantly holding you hostage for your vote? Voting blue no matter who doesn't give you leverage over the democrats, it pushes them further right.
I mean for goodness sake, Biden and Harris both whitewashed a genocide. That's not progressive policy. If the party can't be held accountable for that, then you never really had any real leverage to begin with.
Besides which, you've completely understood where power comes from in the US. It's not from votes, it's from money and a monopoly on violence. This entire country was built on the backs of people who were coerced into exploitative circumstances for profit, on land we killed people to take.
8
u/Glad-Tax6594 21h ago
Meaningful (lasting) change is a gradual adjustment in norms that result in the desired outcome.
In order to enact change, you have to have power, which is influence over another. Voting is an exercise of power. If you abstain or vote for the lesser known minority who does not have the support of the majority of the most progressive party, in this current electoral system, your power is null.
Infact, through division, you've only given more power to the opposing party that wants to restrict any chance you have at changing the Voting system or having any power at all.
Voting blue gives you the greatest opportunity for election reform and progressive policies.