[Simon Hunt]

Thank you, Andrew.

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Tim McGrath

The protesters are the offspring of trophy kids and helicopter parents, which gives them a sense of entitlement.

Yes, a sense of entitlement to be treated by police officers the way those officers treat whites.

[Aaron Novick]

..............

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Tim McGrath

The protesters are the offspring of trophy kids and helicopter parents, which gives them a sense of entitlement. Self-certain and intolerant, they think they have a right to burn and loot, a right to spread the virus by close contact.

Tim,

I see that an hour after my post, you changed the post I was responding to, which might give readers the impression that I hadn't read your post carefully. I've quoted the whole message this time, so if you change it again readers can see how it read when I responded and therefore I won't necessarily feel obligated to engage with the revised post.

Looters are not protesters. I think you know that.

COVID is a concern. There are a lot of maskless people who apparently feel entitled to spread the disease to protest lockdowns or just to run their businesses or live their lives without the restrictions of social distancing. The anti-police-brutality protesters, most of whom seem to wear masks, have a better reason for taking this risk.

Of what are these protesters "intolerant" that they should tolerate?

[Mark McDonnell]

Tim's silly comment about the protesters has redirected this thread back to the issue of protests, when it was specifically set up to talk about voting (because Aaron didn't want to talk about voting on his 'George Floyd Protests' thread).

So. Back to voting. Aaron, I wrote a long post on the 'George Floyd' thread just before you opened this one, so I suppose I'll just paste it in here. I'm still interested in hearing convincing arguments as to why voting for the only candidate who has a chance of defeating Donald Trump isn't a good and necessary thing to do for the health of the US. Not the only thing. But a good and necessary thing.

This was my post:

Aaron said:

You all have, collectively, put rather a lot of effort into trying to convince me, a solitary individual who, as it happens, will be voting (or not) in a solidly blue state, to cast my vote for Biden. You have failed — I will say because your arguments range from bad to beside the point, you will say because I am irrational and stubborn, but in either event you have not failed for lack of trying...


...This discussion of voting emerged from a discussion of the role of national electoral politics in resolving the problems of police brutality. I assume we are all in agreement that their role is slight (especially when the lesser evil's solution is training cops to shoot for the leg rather than the heart), and that other forms of effort—whether that's donating money to relevant causes, attending protests, supporting candidates in local elections who support evidence-based police reforms (up to and including police abolishment)—are of far greater importance.

Of course, Aaron, as you say, the fact that you are in a safe blue state makes all of our persuasive efforts somewhat academic. But this isn't just about you. The anti-Biden wave among some on the left, angry and disillusioned at the failure of the Sanders campaign, dismayed by the return to Democratic business-as-usual, is a real movement. And some of those people live in swing states and their influence may persuade others who also live in swing states. It may not be enough to make a difference. It may just be a lot of noise on Twitter. But in my view it's worth arguing against. When this legitimate anger and disillusionment translates into actually voting in a way that makes a Trump victory even the tiniest bit more likely, it spills over into narcissism.

The only other explanation is that there are some on the left who, for whatever reason, genuinely believe that the lesser of the two evils is actually four more years of Trump, presumably with the rationale that only this would keep the momentum of the left going and give it the shot in the arm it needs. I've no idea to what extent you subscribe to this idea, but as I said earlier, I think its an incredibly risky, if not stupidly dangerous, strategy. My god, Trump and his minions must love these people.

I can't agree that the outcome of this election is all but irrelevant in addressing the current problems of police brutality and I don't believe you do either. It was you, back in post 8, who brought Biden up in the first place with these words

One cannot, of course, count on Joe Biden to do anything whatever to address the racism rotting this country. At the same time he is perhaps less likely to stand in the way of local efforts to do so.

If you grudgingly accept even that then I think you have a moral obligation to vote for him, or (I know, 'safe blue state') at least to not spend any time persuading others not to, who may not be in 'safe blue states'.

The footage you are sharing is appalling. I can see why you want the discussion to return to the current crisis. But there's an implication in your words ("I hope you all will put even half that effort, and preferably more, into actions that will do much more to bring about a juster world") that suggest to me that you are creating straw men and false oppositions: on the one hand there are people who think voting for Biden is all they have to do, after which they can complacently sit back, safe in the knowledge that they have been good liberals and on the other hand there are those people who see through the farce of electoral politics, who are engaged and hands-on and actually taking positive action. You almost frame it as an either/or thing where one must direct one's "efforts" in one direction or the other, prioritising the things that are "of far greater importance". I simply do not get this. Surely it's blindingly obvious that a person should do everything in their power (which in this case is simply casting a vote) to ensure that the current sociopathic, racist, bullying, lying president and his enablers are removed as soon as possible, alongside taking the actions you suggest. Which, as you concede yourself in the quote above, would be made easier with him gone.

[Aaron Novick]

..............

[Julie Steiner]

(3) We also live in a world in which candidates must drum up a ridiculous amount of campaign money in order to get their message in front of potential voters, and candidates therefore feel far more beholden to their donors than to their voters. This major problem must be addressed through comprehensive campaign reform if we want the best quality candidates, not just the best funded candidates, to rise to the top.

[Aaron Novick]

..............

[Julie Steiner]

I've pointed to https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ before, but in this context I was mainly talking about campaign finance reform. Which became even more difficult than ever in the wake of the Supreme Court's horrible Citizens United v. FEC decision. Oy.

[Mark McDonnell]

Mark, thanks for bringing this topic back around. I have little new to add, but I can summarize my key points:

(1) We live in a representative democracy. Everyone has the moral right to demand that, in exchange for their vote, a candidate represent them. Candidates must earn votes; they are never owed them. For some, "not Donald Trump" may be sufficient representation. For me, and others, it is not. If Biden (who has now formally clinched the nomination) starts campaigning in ways where he makes serious overtures to the left, we can reopen that question. This, by the by, is an instance of holding Biden accountable from the left. In an earlier post you recommended I (and others on the left) do this. So why is it that you don't support the one significant means we have of doing this? (No, nothing we can do after he's in office is more effective than threatening to withhold our vote. If you think the actual left in this country should always fall in line with the Democrats because the Republicans are monsters, then, whatever you might say, you want the Democrats to remain a center-right party, and to never feel any pressure to move to the left.)

(2) A somewhat lesser point than the above, but still important, is that thinking as you do is associated with an important downstream mistake in terms of who gets blamed for electoral losses. The mistake is to blame voters not turning out, rather than the campaign that failed to turn them out. (Both Bob and someone else, I'm forgetting who, have done this.) This is a natural consequence of thinking that the lesser evil is owed one's vote, that a candidate does not have to earn it by being good. The party itself escapes blame, is never held accountable. Now the link here isn't logical consequence—you could think as you do and still focus blame for electoral losses on the party—but it's real nonetheless.

Hi Aaron,

I certainly do believe in the left holding the Democratic Party to account in the run up to elections. In my post earlier I specifically said that 'trashing' Biden was counter - productive. By this I mean stories posted on social media (by people on the left) which are nothing to do with persuading Biden to move to more progressive stances on current policy issues in order to secure or earn votes. Rather, they are things like:

Mockery of the fact that George W Bush has apparently endorsed him, posted as evidence of Biden's evil (rather than as evidence that even Bush recognises Trump is a living nightmare)

A story about a pro-police Bill that Biden endorsed in the wake of the Rodney King riots 30 years ago.

His admittedly cringe-inducing comment to a black radio interviewer: "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."

The Tara Reade accusation.

General mockery about his age and possible senility.

Even your statement that he is a "fucking useless piece of shit who supports shooting unarmed people" which I would charitably describe as manipulating the truth by omission.

I don't do Twitter, but it's been interesting to watch my Facebook feed recently. In the last few weeks at least three of these items have been separately posted by two people (both US Spherians – no names) who I would say are politically the furthest left and the furthest right of my FB 'friends'. Biden seems to bring Trumpists and leftists together. How sweet. It's this kind of thing from the left that I see as counter productive.
These things have nothing to do with holding Biden to account for his current policy decisions, they are just character assassination.

From what I've seen, Bernie Sanders is an absolute force of nature in his passion and integrity and commitment to radical change, something that Biden can't begin to approach. There is something farcical and very uninspiring about a Biden / Trump contest, given the questionable mental acuity of both men. I'd much rather the Democratic candidate was someone else. But it isn't. And while it's true that candidates should have to earn your vote, it's also true that no politician can please everyone. Is Biden moving left? Well if you Google that question you get a whole range of answers, enough to please or dismay pretty much everyone. But it seems to me that in this particular election the distance between the two 'evils' is so great as to render these questions irrelevant. It's still a no-brainer. All your objections to the electoral system and worries that always settling for the centre means that things will never change are all real concerns. I think this particular election supersedes those concerns. Given the reality as it is right now, I'm talking about that actual moment in the voting booth.

If you stay away from it or choose to vote third party you will have made a Trump victory a tiny bit more likely. This is objective fact.

Now, you could argue that the Democratic Party, in not doing enough to earn your vote, have done the same. But this is subjective opinion: some people might honestly believe, from their subjective reality, that Biden is the best candidate and that he represents them more than any other Dem candidate.

You say "For some, "not Donald Trump" may be sufficient representation. For me, and others, it is not."

Well for me, right now, it really would be. Because the opposite of "not Donald Trump" is Donald fucking Trump! For four more years!!

Or as James more succinctly put all this, further up the thread: "when your choice isn't the nominee, get over it. Especially now."

I asked for "convincing arguments as to why voting for the only candidate who has a chance of defeating Donald Trump isn't a good and necessary thing to do for the health of the US. Not the only thing. But a good and necessary thing".

Still not convinced I've heard them.