It is not useful for Harris to call the genocide a genocide because it would hurt her chances of being elected. If Trump is elected instead of Harris, the genocide will continue until all Palestinians are dead.
Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide because that hurts the chances of the genocide ending while Palestinians are still alive.
I understand how politics works, and I can understand some of the many complications and consequences involved, but words have meaning, and meaning conveys truth.
So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise. “in my power” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, especially since she’s committed to, let’s say, bend the truth quite a bit with this sentence.
But skepticism alone isn’t analysis. I think by saying this she is trying to lure over “Uncommitted” conscientious objectors who are on the fence and may withhold their vote. But by not speaking strongly enough, she will never reach the vast majority of those people. This assurance feels empty to me. She’s not an ardent supporter of Palestinians, but who can see the future? Events are rapid and things change, "We exist in a context, all that.
But there are disadvantages to people only taking political action by way of their votes, and maybe this is one of them.
I hope she wins. But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings over the last 8 - 10 years.
But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings
This is something that a lot of people don’t think critically about. The republican party is largely homogonized. There isn’t much diversity to their demographic at all. I had great hopes that Trump would fracture the republican party, but they’re even more spineless than I realized. For all the “Trump isn’t fit” gnashing that came before his win, even from the republican party, they sure fell in line behind him real quick. Republicans are all about party over country. They don’t care about compromise, and in fact they don’t want compromise. They will tank their own bills if they think the bill will serve any benefit for democrats. Party above all else, and that’s what gives them so much power.
On the opposite side, democrats are in many ways a coalition of various groups of non-republican voters, each group with their own desires and priorities, some in opposition to others who fall under the same umbrella. If the democrats lose support from one of their many sub-groups, that leads to a loss at the polls, which is a win for conservatives and the country gets pulled Evac further to the right. So democrats constantly have a very fine line to walk to pull voters to their side without pissing off another of their constituent groups.
It sucks, it’s not the way things should be, but it is the reality of our current situation. I’m not advocating for feckless Democrat leaders, rather, I am advocating against conservatives who will absolutely move the country in a direction away from my desired outcomes.
I agree with a lot of your analysis, but I think a lot of these conclusions are highly contingent on historical circumstance. For example, I think Trump is a lot more unpopular than the current narrative regarding Trump. The Dems do not want to be so wrong about Trump’s chance of winning as they were in 2016. A dynamic that could play out in this election is that many of the groups you identified (and were right to do so) feel so threatened by a Trump presidency (in part because of Dems successful and good organizing against him) causes those groups to unite and keep him out of office. This could lead to a split between the pragmatic republican movement concerned with maintaining the status quo, and the pro-Trump MAGA militants who are not as homogenous of a group as may first appear.
But feel free to “neener neener” about it if I end up being wrong in a few hours. My point is, things change, a disparate group of different interests can unite into an unbreakable bloc, and vice versa, in a traumatizingly short amount of time if recent years can be a teacher
No she committed to do everything in her power to end the war. Very different. Sometimes “splitting hairs” isn’t just semantically, especially when it is political. Tell People.
Your argument is splitting hairs. If you care about the Palestinian people then tell people the truth. Harris wants to end the war in Gaza. Trump wants Israel to finish the job. Tomorrow is election day. It’s time to help the Palestinian people in the most useful way we can. By getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. Splitting hairs over Harris’ words is not useful.
So you’re looking at a criticism of liberalism, from the left of liberalism. Namely the socialist left, I am assuming. Socialists can be very critical of liberals, as liberalism is a part of the establishment, and has a long history of caving to right wing framing of issues (since the right wing is also (largely) liberalism, albeit “classical liberal.” In this case critical of the “its not practical” preconception that gives ground (literally) to the perpetuators of this genocide.
No, it’s utility. The idea that we can achieve our goals despite not currently having leftists and socialists in power. Not wanting to get your hands dirty isn’t even a political position.
The genocide in Gaza.
It is not useful for Harris to call the genocide a genocide because it would hurt her chances of being elected. If Trump is elected instead of Harris, the genocide will continue until all Palestinians are dead.
Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide because that hurts the chances of the genocide ending while Palestinians are still alive.
I understand how politics works, and I can understand some of the many complications and consequences involved, but words have meaning, and meaning conveys truth.
So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise. “in my power” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, especially since she’s committed to, let’s say, bend the truth quite a bit with this sentence.
But skepticism alone isn’t analysis. I think by saying this she is trying to lure over “Uncommitted” conscientious objectors who are on the fence and may withhold their vote. But by not speaking strongly enough, she will never reach the vast majority of those people. This assurance feels empty to me. She’s not an ardent supporter of Palestinians, but who can see the future? Events are rapid and things change, "We exist in a context, all that.
But there are disadvantages to people only taking political action by way of their votes, and maybe this is one of them.
I hope she wins. But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings over the last 8 - 10 years.
This is something that a lot of people don’t think critically about. The republican party is largely homogonized. There isn’t much diversity to their demographic at all. I had great hopes that Trump would fracture the republican party, but they’re even more spineless than I realized. For all the “Trump isn’t fit” gnashing that came before his win, even from the republican party, they sure fell in line behind him real quick. Republicans are all about party over country. They don’t care about compromise, and in fact they don’t want compromise. They will tank their own bills if they think the bill will serve any benefit for democrats. Party above all else, and that’s what gives them so much power.
On the opposite side, democrats are in many ways a coalition of various groups of non-republican voters, each group with their own desires and priorities, some in opposition to others who fall under the same umbrella. If the democrats lose support from one of their many sub-groups, that leads to a loss at the polls, which is a win for conservatives and the country gets pulled Evac further to the right. So democrats constantly have a very fine line to walk to pull voters to their side without pissing off another of their constituent groups.
It sucks, it’s not the way things should be, but it is the reality of our current situation. I’m not advocating for feckless Democrat leaders, rather, I am advocating against conservatives who will absolutely move the country in a direction away from my desired outcomes.
I agree with a lot of your analysis, but I think a lot of these conclusions are highly contingent on historical circumstance. For example, I think Trump is a lot more unpopular than the current narrative regarding Trump. The Dems do not want to be so wrong about Trump’s chance of winning as they were in 2016. A dynamic that could play out in this election is that many of the groups you identified (and were right to do so) feel so threatened by a Trump presidency (in part because of Dems successful and good organizing against him) causes those groups to unite and keep him out of office. This could lead to a split between the pragmatic republican movement concerned with maintaining the status quo, and the pro-Trump MAGA militants who are not as homogenous of a group as may first appear.
But feel free to “neener neener” about it if I end up being wrong in a few hours. My point is, things change, a disparate group of different interests can unite into an unbreakable bloc, and vice versa, in a traumatizingly short amount of time if recent years can be a teacher
No, unlike your argument, I’m not arguing we split hairs over semantics.
Unless.
She committed to ending the war in Gaza. If the war ends, the genocide ends. Tell people.
No she committed to do everything in her power to end the war. Very different. Sometimes “splitting hairs” isn’t just semantically, especially when it is political. Tell People.
Your argument is splitting hairs. If you care about the Palestinian people then tell people the truth. Harris wants to end the war in Gaza. Trump wants Israel to finish the job. Tomorrow is election day. It’s time to help the Palestinian people in the most useful way we can. By getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. Splitting hairs over Harris’ words is not useful.
Way to stay on message
Fucking liberalism in a nutshell.
What so you mean?
So you’re looking at a criticism of liberalism, from the left of liberalism. Namely the socialist left, I am assuming. Socialists can be very critical of liberals, as liberalism is a part of the establishment, and has a long history of caving to right wing framing of issues (since the right wing is also (largely) liberalism, albeit “classical liberal.” In this case critical of the “its not practical” preconception that gives ground (literally) to the perpetuators of this genocide.
No, it’s utility. The idea that we can achieve our goals despite not currently having leftists and socialists in power. Not wanting to get your hands dirty isn’t even a political position.
No idea how you plan to achieve your goals when your first step is Holocaust denial.
I will wait until she gets elected, and then if she continues to refuse to call it a genocide, then I will hold her accountable then.
But first, the existence of Palestine as contingent on her winning. Like literally.
By… what mechanism?
Genocide and war aren’t mutually exclusive. The Holocaust happened during WWII.
deleted by creator
As opposed to? Conservatism? How do you expect that to be different? Because in terms of president, those are your two options right now.
Actual leftism. Liberalism is a Conservative movement.
State level electoral reform to replace first past the post voting. Introduce competition into the voting system.
This reads as a joke but it’s actually true 😂