"If you don't vote <insert democrat> democracy will end" - eviltoast
Nothing Left, by Adolph Reed Jr.
harpers.org
The long, slow surrender of American liberals

This article does a great job of explaining people’s frustration with having to vote for Biden again. It’s long, so here are some quotes. They’re totally cherry-picked, I’d recommend reading the whole thing (especially if you think the problem started with Biden, and that Clinton and Obama were ever good choices).

during the 1980s and early 1990s, fears of a relentless Republican juggernaut pressured those left of center to take a defensive stance, focusing on the immediate goal of electing Democrats to stem or slow the rightward tide.

Today, the labor movement has been largely subdued, and social activists have made their peace with neoliberalism and adjusted their horizons accordingly. Within the women’s movement, goals have shifted from practical objectives such as comparable worth and universal child care in the 1980s to celebrating appointments of individual women to public office and challenging the corporate glass ceiling.

Each election now becomes a moment of life-or-death urgency that precludes dissent or even reflection. For liberals, there is only one option in an election year, and that is to elect, at whatever cost, whichever Democrat is running. This modus operandi has tethered what remains of the left to a Democratic Party that has long since renounced its commitment to any sort of redistributive vision and imposes a willed amnesia on political debate.

I mean, you probably should vote Biden this time, because he’s not all that bad, he’s done some good things. And trump is so terrible, it probably will be the end of democracy and the victory of fascism if he wins. Right? But what about in two years time, or four years, or eight years?

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    222·
    7 months ago

    But during the 1980s and early 1990s, fears of a relentless Republican juggernaut pressured those left of center to take a defensive stance, focusing on the immediate goal of electing Democrats to stem or slow the rightward tide.

    I wonder what might have happened between 1968 and 1992 that might have led them to do that

    In those 24 years there was one Democratic president, who actually was pretty left wing (esp in American politics), who only served one term because he was widely unpopular with the electorate because the electorate in America at the time was a bunch of central-America-bombing Israel-supporting proto Nazis. Remember 1972, when Nixon of all fucking people got 520 electoral votes and McGovern of all fucking people got 17?

    I don’t think it was just some weird Democratic-party plot to tack to the right. I think it was survival. I actually do think that there’s a golden opportunity now, with the way the electorate has shifted, for real lefty candidates to gain much more traction than the neoliberal crap, and I think most of the DNC hasn’t figured that out and just gets mad at it instead. Cf Bernie Sanders. But still, that doesn’t mean that even back in 1992 they were doing it on purpose to betray the electorate; I think it was the opposite.

    True, the last Democrat was really unsatisfying, but this one is better; true, the last Republican didn’t bring destruction on the universe, but this one certainly will. And, of course, each of the “pivotal” Supreme Court justices is four years older than he or she was the last time.

    This is about the point where I stopped reading. I was searching for some sort of concrete indication of why they’re saying that the Democrats are continuing to tack steadily to the right, when to me the arc of Clinton -> Obama -> Biden looks like exactly the opposite (quick rundown of why: tons of NATO bombing -> some drone strikes -> weak verbal-only opposition to Israel and sanctions on settlers) (or: welfare-to-work -> income inequality is flat at least -> big wage growth at the bottom end and massive increases in corporate tax). But no, they’re just repeating the assertion and the narrative, over and over, without explaining (anywhere that I saw) why they are asserting it’s that way.

    • JaymesRS@literature.cafeEnglish
      81·
      7 months ago

      I think what you’re saying really explains the struggle with the current Israeli government too. There were significant consequences for not being pro Israel enough and there are multiple past obligations that we are still beholden to as well. But for so long, that survival needed such obeisance toward Israel that to change that behavior is a massive challenge.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        82·
        7 months ago

        Yeah. All this generation of elderly statesmen thinks we’re still in the days of AIPAC and questioning Israel being political suicide. Now I think (at least for Democrats) it’s starting to become the opposite.

        (Not that that excuses supporting Israel in the meantime. Biden had every opportunity to have this “come to Jesus” conversation with Netanyahu and back it up by withholding aid when Netanyahu inevitably laughed in his face, 6 months ago. Even that would have been well, well short of what in a moral world he should be doing, but it would have been a hell of a lot better than what happened.)

    • RainfallSonata@lemmy.world
      213·
      7 months ago

      when to me the arc of Clinton -> Obama -> Biden looks like exactly the opposite

      This is where I rolled my eyes and quit reading your comment.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        112·
        7 months ago

        In a few different places including the part of that sentence you chose not to quote, I gave some concrete reasons for my statement. You can, of course, loftily refuse to acknowledge them, if that’s your preference.