A decade of protest votes, “principled” abstention, and asymmetric neutrality—and the people who could least afford it are the ones still paying the bill.
1. Don't call it asymmetric neutrality syndrome. Use the term "false neutrality". That's what it is. These people are pretending to be neutral when they have a preference all along. They'll frequently say things like, "I don't have a dog in the fight," or in politics, "I'm in Independent." But they always have a position. (Otherwise what the hell are they even doing jumping in?) Their neutrality is a pretense.
2. This is a fantastic analysis, but one thing is missing. Many on the left often wonder why Republicans and MAGAs can get away with running kooks, but if liberals deviate even slightly from someone like Hillary Clinton, they lose.
The short answer is, as Tom Nichols likes to say, "they have a cult, you have a coalition". What he means to say, is that while the liberal coalition enjoys a slight majority, it's just that- a coalition. Conservatives, by contrast, have no majority. They haven't won a national majority since 2004. What they do have, is the largest plurality. The percentage of Americans describing themselves as liberal is near all-time highs. But that means that it's topping out in the high 20s/low 30s. The percentage describing themselves as conservative is consistently in the high 30s/low 40s.
It's not that conservatives have more people to lose- they actually have fewer. But their base is much larger; and it's more monolithic. Kamala Harris had to please everyone from Bernie Sanders to Liz Cheney. Trump just had to cater to the whims of rich whites and cowardly mobile whites.
3. You've hinted at this. I'm going to say it explicitly. Some of these "choose your own adventure" candidates are working for the other side. Some explicitly. But others, you get there if you just dig a little deeper. For example, RFK Jr. A "far left" whacko with a famous name. He's nominally supported every Democrat until Trump. But with a platform that's anti-democratic and always has been.
Stuart Stevens talked a little about this tactic in "It Was All a Lie", one thing Republicans have learned to do (Dems too, just not as well), is to run "foil candidates" in some of these races. If you can get some pied piper who'll lead some of the far left to Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, or RFK Jr., then you boost them.
Dems have done this, and could probably do more of it, frankly. In 2012, Claire McCaskill was set to lose her Senate seat. She boosted some anti-choice nut named Todd Akin in the GOP primary. Liberally had her donors donate to Todd. He won the primary. She won the general. Dems really could stand to do more of that, especially in some of these GOP +30 districts.
4. Dems need to do a better job of identifying "foil candidates" in their own coalition. The urge is to "cancel" them. Don't.
Instead, start issuing ultimatums: Get on board with the platform, or get out of the race. (This is why having a platform helps.)
To an anti-Trump independent like myself, it is the Great AIPAC Witch Hunt that’s extremely concerning today . À half of Democratic camp seems much more interested in going after their own than going after the fascists.
In the next general election (s), it is a certainty that some voters will refuse to vote for a candidate they think insufficiently anti-Israel, and some radical anti-Israel candidates will be nominated over the moderates with a better chance to win in general elections. The only question is whether such developments will be sufficiently widespread to sink the party again.
Part of what’s guaranteed in the First Amendment is the freedom to speak incorrectly, ignorantly, foolishly and thoughtlessly, and much more, for that matter. If only smart, winning candidates ran, we wouldn’t need primaries or general elections. Third-party candidates have included people like Eugene Debs, Theodore Roosevelt, and Robert La Follette, the latter figure still beloved in his home state. As for the 2000 election, the decision of the Supreme Court was ultimately more consequential than that of any single voter.
There are many obstacles and challenges in our current system, especially given the actions taking place in the legislatures at this very moment. Better to work to overcome those.
I believe politics serves people, is not inflexible, and is a personal expression as much as a public statement. People need to play by the rules but rules are often arbitrary even as they allow the game to be played with ferocious energy, emotions, and a constant testing of their power. We need to set the rules even while we know they could change. Just like in, say, baseball. Tired of bad hitting from a a pitcher? Let another go to bat for the pitcher. And so on.
Don’t like a candidate for office? Pick another or don’t choose another or don’t play. But politics isn’t baseball. The DH doesn’t play in the field and can’t affect the game’s play until the next turn at bat. A position player can affect the game throughout, not just at certain moments.
So a voter choosing another candidate from the ‘bench’, even from the other team or league, weakens the game writ large by adding a new rule or candidate that could upend the outcome, the season, the whole concept of electoral politics. One may not like a player or candidate but that’s the way it is. There’s always next year. There’s always next season.
Years ago, Trump was not allowed to play in the NFL, so he organized a new league. His right, his loss. The NFL prospered. Trump prospered, elsewhere.
My point, if I can get to it, is there’s little reward and much damage when a voter picks an alternate to the chosen candidate. One less vote for the one candidate who can legitimately affect the government lessens the chance for having a government that’s acceptable. Work to change the rules instead.
Thanks for all the specifics. I’ve tried and tried to forgive them but Sarandon and Glaude can never find their way into my good graces again. Republicans have always known nothing else matters if you don’t win.
We had this conversation yesterday. One of my brothers-in-law voted for Jill Stein in 2016. Two of them voted for Trump, 3 times. The one who voted for Stein would probably still vote for her. The two Trump voters bitch and piss and moan about how bad things are, but make no comment on Trump. We put too much emphasis on the "experts" and not enough on what is important to US.
I respect your writing and your intent, especially as someone who grew up 20 miles from you and who likes psychology and politics quite a bit.
But you kinda lost me in this screed.
I wish you would have taken the time to illustrate how Dems can be successful in November, and that an anti-corruption message is probably more important than any particular identity, and certainly more important than ideological purity, progressive bona fides, or political correctness.
Democratic mobilization and enthusiasm can trump Trump's chicanery and cheating in the midterms, but we do all need to be on the same page.
If Killer Mike or Ken Martin or Kamala Harris are not right-minded then forget them. We are facing a mountain of skullduggery now and on election day, and a unifying message such as pro-economic reform, pro-legal-justice-for-the-fascists, and pro-affordability can paper over the Left's widely-differing viewpoints and identity issues.
A couple thoughts:
1. Don't call it asymmetric neutrality syndrome. Use the term "false neutrality". That's what it is. These people are pretending to be neutral when they have a preference all along. They'll frequently say things like, "I don't have a dog in the fight," or in politics, "I'm in Independent." But they always have a position. (Otherwise what the hell are they even doing jumping in?) Their neutrality is a pretense.
2. This is a fantastic analysis, but one thing is missing. Many on the left often wonder why Republicans and MAGAs can get away with running kooks, but if liberals deviate even slightly from someone like Hillary Clinton, they lose.
The short answer is, as Tom Nichols likes to say, "they have a cult, you have a coalition". What he means to say, is that while the liberal coalition enjoys a slight majority, it's just that- a coalition. Conservatives, by contrast, have no majority. They haven't won a national majority since 2004. What they do have, is the largest plurality. The percentage of Americans describing themselves as liberal is near all-time highs. But that means that it's topping out in the high 20s/low 30s. The percentage describing themselves as conservative is consistently in the high 30s/low 40s.
It's not that conservatives have more people to lose- they actually have fewer. But their base is much larger; and it's more monolithic. Kamala Harris had to please everyone from Bernie Sanders to Liz Cheney. Trump just had to cater to the whims of rich whites and cowardly mobile whites.
3. You've hinted at this. I'm going to say it explicitly. Some of these "choose your own adventure" candidates are working for the other side. Some explicitly. But others, you get there if you just dig a little deeper. For example, RFK Jr. A "far left" whacko with a famous name. He's nominally supported every Democrat until Trump. But with a platform that's anti-democratic and always has been.
Stuart Stevens talked a little about this tactic in "It Was All a Lie", one thing Republicans have learned to do (Dems too, just not as well), is to run "foil candidates" in some of these races. If you can get some pied piper who'll lead some of the far left to Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, or RFK Jr., then you boost them.
Dems have done this, and could probably do more of it, frankly. In 2012, Claire McCaskill was set to lose her Senate seat. She boosted some anti-choice nut named Todd Akin in the GOP primary. Liberally had her donors donate to Todd. He won the primary. She won the general. Dems really could stand to do more of that, especially in some of these GOP +30 districts.
4. Dems need to do a better job of identifying "foil candidates" in their own coalition. The urge is to "cancel" them. Don't.
Instead, start issuing ultimatums: Get on board with the platform, or get out of the race. (This is why having a platform helps.)
To an anti-Trump independent like myself, it is the Great AIPAC Witch Hunt that’s extremely concerning today . À half of Democratic camp seems much more interested in going after their own than going after the fascists.
In the next general election (s), it is a certainty that some voters will refuse to vote for a candidate they think insufficiently anti-Israel, and some radical anti-Israel candidates will be nominated over the moderates with a better chance to win in general elections. The only question is whether such developments will be sufficiently widespread to sink the party again.
And yet, no one seems to listen.
Part of what’s guaranteed in the First Amendment is the freedom to speak incorrectly, ignorantly, foolishly and thoughtlessly, and much more, for that matter. If only smart, winning candidates ran, we wouldn’t need primaries or general elections. Third-party candidates have included people like Eugene Debs, Theodore Roosevelt, and Robert La Follette, the latter figure still beloved in his home state. As for the 2000 election, the decision of the Supreme Court was ultimately more consequential than that of any single voter.
There are many obstacles and challenges in our current system, especially given the actions taking place in the legislatures at this very moment. Better to work to overcome those.
I believe politics serves people, is not inflexible, and is a personal expression as much as a public statement. People need to play by the rules but rules are often arbitrary even as they allow the game to be played with ferocious energy, emotions, and a constant testing of their power. We need to set the rules even while we know they could change. Just like in, say, baseball. Tired of bad hitting from a a pitcher? Let another go to bat for the pitcher. And so on.
Don’t like a candidate for office? Pick another or don’t choose another or don’t play. But politics isn’t baseball. The DH doesn’t play in the field and can’t affect the game’s play until the next turn at bat. A position player can affect the game throughout, not just at certain moments.
So a voter choosing another candidate from the ‘bench’, even from the other team or league, weakens the game writ large by adding a new rule or candidate that could upend the outcome, the season, the whole concept of electoral politics. One may not like a player or candidate but that’s the way it is. There’s always next year. There’s always next season.
Years ago, Trump was not allowed to play in the NFL, so he organized a new league. His right, his loss. The NFL prospered. Trump prospered, elsewhere.
My point, if I can get to it, is there’s little reward and much damage when a voter picks an alternate to the chosen candidate. One less vote for the one candidate who can legitimately affect the government lessens the chance for having a government that’s acceptable. Work to change the rules instead.
Thanks for all the specifics. I’ve tried and tried to forgive them but Sarandon and Glaude can never find their way into my good graces again. Republicans have always known nothing else matters if you don’t win.
We had this conversation yesterday. One of my brothers-in-law voted for Jill Stein in 2016. Two of them voted for Trump, 3 times. The one who voted for Stein would probably still vote for her. The two Trump voters bitch and piss and moan about how bad things are, but make no comment on Trump. We put too much emphasis on the "experts" and not enough on what is important to US.
I respect your writing and your intent, especially as someone who grew up 20 miles from you and who likes psychology and politics quite a bit.
But you kinda lost me in this screed.
I wish you would have taken the time to illustrate how Dems can be successful in November, and that an anti-corruption message is probably more important than any particular identity, and certainly more important than ideological purity, progressive bona fides, or political correctness.
Democratic mobilization and enthusiasm can trump Trump's chicanery and cheating in the midterms, but we do all need to be on the same page.
If Killer Mike or Ken Martin or Kamala Harris are not right-minded then forget them. We are facing a mountain of skullduggery now and on election day, and a unifying message such as pro-economic reform, pro-legal-justice-for-the-fascists, and pro-affordability can paper over the Left's widely-differing viewpoints and identity issues.