cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31233166
Generated Summary below:
Video Description:
Journalist, comedian, and host of The Bitchuation Room podcast Francesca Fiorentini joins Bad Faith Pod on the heels of breaking news that former Biden Whitehouse Press Secretary Karina Jean Pierre is leaving the Democratic Party because it was too mean to Joe Biden. After recovering from the absurdity of Jean Pierre’s grift, Briahna and Francesca discuss Fran’s increasing openness to third parties, fissures on the left over Force the Vote, and whether the left can be united over a 2024 candidate and avoid succumbing to vote blue no matter who pressure.
Generated Summary:
Main Topic: The video discusses the challenges of left-wing unity, the failures of the Democratic Party, and the potential for third-party movements. It also touches on the role of figures like AOC and the strategic considerations for the left in the current political climate.
Key Points:
- Democratic Party Failures: The speakers express disillusionment with the Democratic Party, arguing that it consistently acts against the interests of working people due to donor influence and structural issues. They cite examples like the Biden administration's policies and the party's stance on issues like Gaza.
- Third-Party Potential: The conversation explores the possibility of building a successful third party as an alternative to trying to reform the Democratic Party.
- Authenticity and Trust: The speakers emphasize the importance of authenticity and ideological consistency for political figures to gain and maintain public trust. They contrast figures like Obama and Bernie Sanders, who initially inspired faith, with the perceived inconsistency of establishment Democrats.
- Activism Under Different Administrations: The discussion examines whether activism is more effective under Republican or Democratic administrations, with differing views on the level of repression and media coverage.
- BLM and Movement Building: The speakers discuss the Black Lives Matter movement, its successes and failures, and the need for long-term institution-building to prevent the rollback of progress.
- AOC's Role: The potential future role of AOC in the political landscape is discussed, including the possibility of her running for president.
Highlights:
- Francesca Fiorentini shares her personal journey from working within the Democratic Party to becoming a critic, citing the party's unwillingness to use power to benefit working people.
- The speakers debate the effectiveness of harm reduction arguments for voting for Democrats, even when they are not ideal candidates.
- The conversation touches on the importance of supporting third parties now, before the next election cycle.
- The speakers discuss the need for the left to unite and develop candidates to challenge the establishment.
- The discussion includes the endorsement of a candidate and the establishment melting down.
About Channel:
based on the hit tv show
With Briahna Joy Gray
I would argue that it's because, unlike conservatives, liberals are not blind followers willing to overlook any sin. OTOH, it also demonstrates a lack of foresight and understanding about the realities of the FPTP voting.
It seems you confused liberals with leftists.
Liberals are the vote blue no matter who peeps.
Putting aside the divide-and-conquer strategies of political leanings, I think we should focus on uniting the working class on the economic issues we agree on rather than waste our time debating what we don't agree on.
Chris Smalls achieved uniting the working class in an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island when the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) was formed.
There's no hard, fixed definition, but Ok. Liberals, progressives, leftists. Democrats - the established Democratic party - has historically been less willing to overlook sins of their members. When Democrat pedophiles are outed, they've been kicked out; Republican ones just get overlooked by their party and re-elected.
The D party is weak, ineffectual, geriatric, and has lost its moral center. Democrats tend to think more critically about who they vote for.
However: the "voting Blue no matter what" is a different issue. That's the reality of our FPTP voting system, and the electoral college. When it comes down to the final vote in the general election, if you aren't voting for the lesser of the two evils from the two major parties in the US, you may as well not vote. No third party candidate has come even close to winning the presidency since 1861. As long as we have the electoral college, no third party candidate will.
I am in complete agreement that the political divide is manufactured to mask the class war that the rich have effectively won. They've won, because they're the only ones fighting. The gains by Unions is good, and may be the only hope; but when we have a dictator in the White House, the political divide factor can't be ignored either.
Right?
Quick thoughts:
I don't think it is out of some sort of greater good. On the blue team, I see it as them being cowards and not willing to risk the scandal, letting those that get separated or kicked out from the herd get eaten.
The red team is similar in that aspect; if they stray and cause a scandal, they will let them be eaten by wolves unless they have backing, then they may be forced to help out to keep on good terms.
The major difference is when the politician has populist backing. We can see this with some politicians when their base goes full force in going against the party line and sticking with their politician.
Trump and his backing accomplished this feat. The Republicans were against him, but he had his MAGA backing to keep him from being eaten and taken out by the party; they did try, though. Not to mention he is also an oligarch with backing, so in some aspects it may be corporatists versus oligarchs.
Kamala was a corporatist, and Trump was an oligarch.
Voting the lesser of two evils quotes:
The only difference is that Trump is open with his dictator ways, but do not mistake that the duopoly will always work to help themselves and to let the working class die off.
I would never suggest that Democrats don't have their own crooks and con artists. It's clear they do; and some liberal communities will overlook these. Although I don't believe infidelity precludes being a good President, I understand outrage that Democrats, nationally, were willing to overlook Clinton's affair(s). I don't, however, believe they'd have overlooked convicted felonies, clear treason, graft, or pedophilia, and that's the difference.
You're right that this state of affairs has not always existed; Nixon stepped down, after all, and prior to Nixon - farther back - Democrats were the party of segregationists. I'm suggesting that, for the past 40 or so years, Democrats have broadly been less hypocritical than Republicans, and held their representatives to higher standards of ethics. Maybe the difference is slight, but when Al Franken was accused of sexual misconduct, reaction was swift and he stepped down. Meanwhile, Mark Foley is texting underage boys, and his own anti-gay party (even ignoring the pedophilia nature) turned a blind eye.
I am not defending the two party system. I am certainly not defending FPTP. I stand on the evidence that no third party has come anywhere close to a plurality in the electoral college, much less the popular vote, for the Presidency in the past 165 years, and this - pithy quotes - demonstrates that voting for the lesser of two evils is currently the only option.
If we want to change this, we change our voting system, and we eliminate the electoral college. Voting for third parties, no matter how idealistic, affects no change.