The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.
The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.
What you just said though contradicts itself. At the end of the day voting en masse for reform is “a mass movement”. Things won’t change when these politicians feel comfortable. Voting against them and being vocal about this as an issue will scare them. Voting absolutely works and all this rhetoric around “voting can’t fix this” is exactly how we end up with this bullshit. Boomers learned decades ago how effective voting can be at changing everything and they have consistently turned out and shaped society around their needs as a result. If young people could get this through their heads then shit would actually change. Especially since millennials and gen z now make up the majority of the voting age population in the US.
People who say “just don’t vote” or advocate abstaining from elections as a method to end the Democrats are entitled and come from a place of privilege.
History says otherwise. I admire the idealism, and wish you were right. But the capitalist will go fascist before they allow a threat to their power. Only a rev0luti0n will work.
US history proves otherwise. Real change has been made in the labor sector without “revolution”. And on that front I will even concede that it took more than just voting to change labor laws. It took a concerted effort against the capitalist class itself with strikes and other resistance efforts. But it worked and things changed and it didn’t require overthrowing the government and destabilizing everything.
But voting would absolutely work too. At the end of the day, the people in charge are where they are because they were voted into their positions. Wealthy elites do not make up the majority of America. An angry populace would have the power to capsize their machine. “Voting doesn’t matter” as a position will only lose you ground. The “revolution” you speak of is pointless if you don’t have the majority of politically involved people behind you. At that point it’s not a “revolution”. It’s an “unpopular coup”. We see in the way people vote that the problem is that the voting populace has not been convinced by the stances of the left. Before any revolution would be an ethically sound idea, we should be seeing numbers that suggest that the majority of people are on board with radical change. And by the time that happens, those people would have the power to effect that change through voting. If the wealthy elites used underhanded tactics to suppress voting when the majority is clearly in favor of a certain change, then and only then does revolution become the ethical imperative.
In summary, don’t bother suggesting revolution if the majority of people aren’t behind you on it. Instead focus that energy on convincing people that radical change is necessary. Use the system to your advantage. Only when that fails through corrupt means does revolution become necessary.
The right wing understood this so much 3-4 decades ago and they have reaped the benefits of that understanding so thoroughly that people on the left have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off, calling for things like revolution. No, the playbook is simple. Use every advantage you can within the system. Fight for the SCOTUS and don’t be afraid to politicize it in opposition to the right wing fascists. Find wedge issues that you can call the other side on. Take control of the narrative. Be aware of your demographics and create a unifying message that brings the disparate groups together.
I think I need to clarify. Only the threat of revolution can effect change. If your only recourse is reform. The system and structures of institutions will adapt to thwart them. If reforms worked, revolutions would never happen. Rosa Luxembourg found this out a century ago.