This is the strategy that Democrats have followed since 1988. In that time, the Overton window has relentlessly shifted to the right. It is the dynamic that makes it politically practical for Republicans to also relentlessly shift further right. It’s a positive feedback loop that eventually spirals toward fascism. Just examine the last four decades. It’s right there.
It’s not ‘consensus building’ when the other party has a principled opposition to consensus. It’s just a pre-negotiated concession. It is a lack leadership. That is the Democratic Party in a nutshell.
It’s not a “strategy”, it’s literally how democracy works. You need 50% + 1 or all the moral purity in the universe means nothing. If the far left continues to never work as a coalition then the left is forced to move to the middle. Don’t get me wrong, most of my views are pretty far left, I just understand how democracy works…
First off, it’s not about majority, it’s about plurality. But that’s just nitpicking.
The disagreement here is about how a party achieves pluralities. They could follow a strategy of running toward the positions in their opposition, or they can do it by attempting to convince members of their opposition about the merits of their principled positions. Some compromises will frequently be practical, but enshrining compromise itself as a core principle, as opposed to policy, is only a strategy for maintaining power for power’s sake. Democracy should be more than team sports IMO.
Again, just look at what happened in the last 40 years. Asymmetrical consensus seeking has fueled the march of American fascism. Unless you want to argue that democracies will always inevitably slide toward fascism, I refuse to accept your characterization of democracy.
I think you’re mis-characterizing what I’m saying. That isn’t the only two options, the far left could be a little more honest about how one gets to a majority and start working with the only party with power that somewhat aligns. It’s what I’ve done much of my adult life, I’ve swam in party politics, there is a lot more room for socialists, democratic socialists, progressives, etc in the party than people seem to realize. You just have to be willing to compromise for incremental progress instead of letting perfect be the enemy of good. Policy shifts move slowly, but they do move.
The left has a clear path forward to move the Overton window back, but it needs the far left to be willing to do something other than constantly masturbate our/their moral self righteousness. But parties don’t really shift the Overton window that much alone, society does, activism does, education does. Parties don’t give a great speech and everyone changes their mind. That kind of of leadership is a simplistic fantasy we sell ourselves, but really parties and leaders meet the moment, they don’t make the moment. Citizens need to get involved, the far left needs to stop standing on the outside looking in. They need to be committed long term to joining, and then shifting, the party for real.
This is the strategy that Democrats have followed since 1988. In that time, the Overton window has relentlessly shifted to the right. It is the dynamic that makes it politically practical for Republicans to also relentlessly shift further right. It’s a positive feedback loop that eventually spirals toward fascism. Just examine the last four decades. It’s right there.
It’s not ‘consensus building’ when the other party has a principled opposition to consensus. It’s just a pre-negotiated concession. It is a lack leadership. That is the Democratic Party in a nutshell.
It’s not a “strategy”, it’s literally how democracy works. You need 50% + 1 or all the moral purity in the universe means nothing. If the far left continues to never work as a coalition then the left is forced to move to the middle. Don’t get me wrong, most of my views are pretty far left, I just understand how democracy works…
First off, it’s not about majority, it’s about plurality. But that’s just nitpicking.
The disagreement here is about how a party achieves pluralities. They could follow a strategy of running toward the positions in their opposition, or they can do it by attempting to convince members of their opposition about the merits of their principled positions. Some compromises will frequently be practical, but enshrining compromise itself as a core principle, as opposed to policy, is only a strategy for maintaining power for power’s sake. Democracy should be more than team sports IMO.
Again, just look at what happened in the last 40 years. Asymmetrical consensus seeking has fueled the march of American fascism. Unless you want to argue that democracies will always inevitably slide toward fascism, I refuse to accept your characterization of democracy.
I think you’re mis-characterizing what I’m saying. That isn’t the only two options, the far left could be a little more honest about how one gets to a majority and start working with the only party with power that somewhat aligns. It’s what I’ve done much of my adult life, I’ve swam in party politics, there is a lot more room for socialists, democratic socialists, progressives, etc in the party than people seem to realize. You just have to be willing to compromise for incremental progress instead of letting perfect be the enemy of good. Policy shifts move slowly, but they do move.
The left has a clear path forward to move the Overton window back, but it needs the far left to be willing to do something other than constantly masturbate our/their moral self righteousness. But parties don’t really shift the Overton window that much alone, society does, activism does, education does. Parties don’t give a great speech and everyone changes their mind. That kind of of leadership is a simplistic fantasy we sell ourselves, but really parties and leaders meet the moment, they don’t make the moment. Citizens need to get involved, the far left needs to stop standing on the outside looking in. They need to be committed long term to joining, and then shifting, the party for real.