I’m not going to sit here and pretend a strong, well liked leader doesn’t help a political party. But like, how can it be wise to lean so heavily on an individual? Is it a symptom of how 'high stakes" US elections are?
I think it’s more a symptom of how low information US voters are.
Idk I think canada has a lot of that too. People rely on fox news type shows, facebook, and political advertisements to decide. We have a lot of the same absurd misinformation shit. People did literally believe the prime minister was the son of Fidel Castro, for example.
Even if they buy into “immigrants are stealing our jerbs” they have to pick which right wing party to vote for and leadership has kinda been a revolving door at both the federal and provincial levels in recent years. Not sure if it’s the cause or effect?
Parties do spend a lot of time and money promoting the leaders. I don’t want to pretend we’re above that or anything lol. A hilarious example:
It didn’t work lol, he’s still a fucking nerd. After he lost the last election (both for the party and his own seat) he decided to try harder and moved to Alberta. I can’t find the photo but apparently he showed up wearing the cowboy hat backwards and folks did not take kindly to that 🤡
I don’t know much about the political climate in countries other than the US and canada but it would be interesting to know if the emphasis on the individual is so high.
Conservatives thought Trudeau was elected because of his dreamy hair and went on about it for years. So the plan was to put lipstick on their pig. It backfired.
Not really, liberals barely won and the ndp were murdered in the process
I was just discussing this with my spouse so we refreshed our memory on how previous elections went. I’m not disagreeing with you at all, I just think it’s funny that they went from Sheer to O’Toole to this guy and we’re like, “Yes, this is the fresh new face we need to appeal to the youth.” 🤭
I think that anyone who was paying attention when Trudeau entered politics knew the party was treating him as their savior. That said, I had forgotten how blatant it was. I lived in Michael Ignatieff’s ward. I remember at the time an thinking '“this guy is fucking cooked” after it came to light that he made disparaging remarks about Ukrainian people in his book and then doubled down when asked about it.
People loved Jean Augustine (MP prior) in Etobicoke Lakeshore. I remember people crying at events to honour her when she retired. She was a teacher, and a Black woman who immigrated from Grenada as a domestic worker. It gets overshadowed by Little Jamaica but Etobicoke Lakeshore has a very large Caribbean immigrant community because many of them came as skilled workers to the (formerly) heavily industrial area. So they plop this suit who has lived in the states for 30 years and taught at Harvard in this riding and thought it would work out? It suddenly makes more sense why Trudeau was seen as being able to save the party lol. They steered too hard toward a leader like Harper and it did not work out for them.
I’ve never seen the level of willful ignorance that we have now! It’s a cult!
Moar leik how few people are allowed by the plutocracy to run in the rigged US elections
IMO it’s not wise, and it is a symptom. Congress has been ceding more and more of its authority to the executive for a few decades now because it makes it easier for incumbents to avoid controversy and win reelection. The executive branch has become more powerful and is now being molded by the Unitary Executive Theory, or the “What if we had a king but used a different word” theory. It’s this idea that all executive power flows from the office of the president, so anyone not the president must either toady up or prepare to get fired. Except the fed, for some reason 🤔🤔🤔
I think some other executive departments, particularly DoJ, should have directly elected leaders and should be able to control their disbursements from Congress independently of the President. They should be a check on the President just as the President should be a check on them. I’m pretty sure that would require a constitutional amendment and I’d want someone more versed in political theory than me to describe exactly how executive authority should be divided, but as it is the US presidency is far too powerful for the country’s own good.
Down with the executive. I want a PM appointed by a parliament instead.
What if we had a king but used a different word" theory
I yapped about it too much over here but like…
If the president can do whatever he wants within the confines of his role
And there is no way for his party to hold him to account
And there isn’t even an overall party platform so we can’t even pretend there is a mandate
How is it not just choosing a new king every 4 years?
There absolutely is a way for a party (or rather the Congress itself) to confine a President to their role, it’s just that Congress finds it much easier to abdicate power to the President than to do their own jobs.
They don’t read or write legislation, or even show up to work half the time. They’re not interested in governing, and they certainly don’t need to be an active or competent legislative body to do their overlords’ bidding. Sitting back and letting the President order a billion more bombs for Israel is perfectly fine for them.
If Congress were a functioning body, they would impeach, legislate, and bind the Executive. Remove Secretariats, restructure offices, difine limits to power and enforce them. They are the first of the three branches for a reason. It’s their job to define the role and powers of the office of the President (and even the Courts), besides of the command of the military during war.
There absolutely is a way for a party (or rather the Congress itself) to confine a President to their role,
I don’t think I expressed myself well.
When I said
If the president can do whatever he wants within the confines of his role
I was trying to be specific that I was looking at my understanding of the system as designed, from day one.
But like, how can it be wise to lean so heavily on an individual? Is it a symptom of how 'high stakes" US elections are?
I agree with that, but also see why the problem exists. We as the left hate having a single point of failure like a leader, but occupy wallstreet I think was the biggest demonstration of what happens without it. IE when the movement is a large group, the media says “OK there’s no leader so anyone we talk to in the group speaks for the group, therefore we can look for the person in the crowd who looks the least capable of making an arguement, interview them and declare the whole movement as aimless”.
It’s likely I’m not understanding your point so I would appreciate it if you could correct my interpretation…
I’m hearing that it’s important to choose a leader because a party or movement without a leader could not communicate the platform effectively and would surely lose even if people agreed with them. I wasn’t suggesting that within an electoral system a political party should not have a leader or at least a spokesperson.
I realize my example doesn’t have the same meaning to people who are unfamiliar with other political systems but parties just yeet leaders and move on. I suppose there are structural differences that make that impossible in the states, like having the election for president being entirely separate from electing local representatives and that being party leader or even PM in canada doesn’t require you to hold a seat. I also keep forgetting about primaries lol. Those are not a thing.
I was looking at US congressional election results to see if I could imagine a comparable scenario but I think the systems are too different…
In 2019 the new leader of the Conservative party lost the election. His party wasn’t in power before, and they actually gained 26/343 seats but he had to step down as leader because his party was not happy with his gains. He’s still in office and still a member of the party. He even served as interim leader again when the next guy got ousted.
The next election in 2021 had a new leader and they lost again but did not gain or lose any seats. His party was still mad but this time it was more about him not being right wing enough:
On January 31, 2022, Conservative Calgary Heritage MP Bob Benzen submitted a letter with signatures from 35 Conservative MPs calling for a leadership review on O’Toole’s leadership to the Conservative caucus chair, Scott Reid. In the letter, Benzen criticized O’Toole’s reversal on repealing Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax and assault weapons ban.
He kept served the rest of this term but did not seek election.
I remember some of the discussion around Bidden stepping down from reflection and how it seemed to be portrayed as a weakness of the party or something that would doom the party. I also think about how the president can basically do whatever they want without needing to get buy in from the party, especially in the context of “blue no matter who” and the question of supporting Palestine in 2024. There is no party cohesion because there isn’t a mechanism to have consequences for pissing off large sections of your party while you are in office. A more positive framing would be there is no mechanism to ensure the party leader is representing the wishes of the party, which is assumed to be the wishes of the public who elected them. If I understand correctly platforms are individual rather than party based as well that doesn’t really help with a cohesive message either.
I think I now understand better why emphasis on the individual is so important in this system:
- A leader for a party (presidential candidate) is chosen shortly before the general election. They get no practical experience before hand because choosing a leader is part of the election process and cannot happen until then.
- They get the job, presumably based on the platform that won them the primary and was crafted by the party after the primaries.
- Once they are in office you better hope they toe the line because to question them would be to question the whole party even though the party has no say in how they conduct themselves.
In contrast, in other systems you don’t need an election for the party to say “nah you don’t represent us any more” and the person doesn’t lose their seat/you don’t topple the government. It’s rare it happens to the sitting PM, but our last PM resigned from the job basically under duress because his own party was like “don’t make us kick you out” and the opposition was like “don’t make me trigger an election”.
it’s not a magic approach. The last PM broke his promise on electorial reform and his party did not care at all, but obviously they had vested interest in it not changing. But that was more about the public losing faith, not the party.
I agree on the general concept that, the party needs better controls, and to laude the fact that they get rid of bad leaders, rather than just that be seen as a weakness…
Biden and Platner are 2 solid examples of that where IMO the concept is a stregnth… though in biden’s case, the major mistake was not doing it from the start… IE only holding a sham primary to begin with, and him holding on until the debate where he completely shit the bed.
Platner I feel there was some major mistakes in not seeing it sooner, IMO the hint of alegations of being abusive, and the history of being in black rock should have been bigger red flags than they were to people. But the speed at which his resignation was pushed, and the party stepped in to replace him, at least bodes in the right direction
Shawn Fain
The main lesson of the Graham Platner fiasco isn’t that we should never run outsiders for office (the momentum he generated proves the exact opposite), but that they need proper vetting and roots in democratic membership organizations like DSA or a union.
Planter was vetted…
By the Maine state party, it went so far that “vetted” is a poor word choice, they picked him.
Then when he said things about Israel they didn’t think he would, they took their own pick out and replaced him with someone more conservative.
If the Maine state party wasn’t filled with idiots from Florida’s party who have shown they completely incompetent…
A cynic would say they picked Platner with the intent from day one to throw him under a bus after a primary so they can make a candidate.
But if that was actually their plan, they would have fucked it up somehow.
People need to understand now that we’re back to a bottom-up power structure, we really need to work on state parties
Aren’t unions supportive of Trump now? They wouldn’t run someone against him. Unions have become largely worthless after they lost their revolutionary spirit. Now they only serve capitalism and fascism.
The problem with unions is selfishness.
People vote for whoever they think will take care of them, and at a certain point a corrupt person is willing to do more ( or more likely to just lie), so they start electing corrupt union leaders.
Those corrupt union leaders, care more about themselves than the people they represent.
Don’t blame unions as a concept.
A sandwich is a magical thing, but if someone poops between two slices of bread, that doesn’t mean every sandwich is shit, or that we can never eat a sandwich again.
We just need to look at it before biting in, because we know some assholes are shittingnin sandwiches.
Informed voters is always the solution, that’s true for unions as much as Senators.
I still believe in the concept of unions. I want to see unions collectively take over means of production. I also agree they’ve been corrupted. Where things went wrong was an imposition of the manufactured cultural war by the neoliberal establishment. A blue-collar construction or factory worker with a high-school education doesn’t care about things like genderqueer rights. They also lean towards reactionary social beliefs.
Manufactuing a cultural war in the context of economic oppression creates an opportunity for right-wing movements to arise, who promise the world to blue-collar workers while appealing to their reactionary tendencies. The oppressors can conveniently scapegoat marginalized groups for the struggles of blue collar workers, when the real problem stems from the oligarchs.
I want to see all humans have equal right, but that can’t truly happen unless capitalism is put in check by workers and progressively eliminated.
I want to see unions collectively take over means of production
That is a wild idea…
Like, I don’t think you actually understand what a union is, the problem can’t be that you’re not aware a union is corruptible.
Like, the government should take that from capitalists, we can influence a government and hold them accountable. Not to mention we’d gain long term planning again instead of chasing profits one quarter at a time.
Like, if unions controlled the means of production, a union is very easy for the oligarchs to corrupt.
You’ve got the right spirit, but that is just an awful idea.
Like, if unions controlled the means of production, a union is very easy for the oligarchs to corrupt.
In a context where the oligarch class has been conquered and eliminated, and where true democratic representation is established, this problem of corruption is dealt with.
Simply put, the Epstein class needs to be overturned and eliminated.
Buddy…
We’ve overthrown oligarchs before…
Giving that power to unions, just guarantee that what little unions are corrupt, would become corrupt.
I don’t think you understand how much a factory would fuck over non-workers. If the question is “should a factory increase their workers compensation to the detriment of consumers and environment”…
Every factory will have its workers pick the person who lies about what they can do for workers and how that will effect others.
Because the honest ones won’t lie about either.
Just to be clear:
Simply put, the Epstein class needs to be overturned and eliminated.
No one is disagreeing.
I’m saying your plan might buy us a decade or even two, then it’ll be a new class of oligarchs, likely compromised of 90% the same people.
Like how after the communist revolutions in China and Russia just ended with new oligarchs, neither actually fixed anything, it just shuffled the people at the top, that’s all your plan will do as well.
We can’t waste an opportunity like we have now to do something history has shown us repeatedly won’t work.
And capitalism hasn’t failed at learning lessons?
Unlike capitalists, Marxists critically analyze their own past attempts and plan adjustments. We’ve seen this take place in China and other countries that have incorporated market-style elements into their societies to increase industrialization and production.
In fact this is perfectly in line with Marxism’s suggestion of a 10-point plan to gradually subjugate capital to the will of workers. A transitional phase where capital increasingly falls under worker control is socialist in nature.
Socialism will find a way to remain democratic, preserve human rights and continue to drive innovation. Because it is an evolving, scientific approach to a more just society.
Capitalists always make the same mistake. While we regulate things like violence and rape, capitalists refuse to regulate human greed, which is the root of all evil. The goal of capitalism will always be to make the black line of profit trend upwards for the ruling class, regardless of human cost.
Buddy…
No one is defending capitalism either
You’re very passionate about this, but you’re not understanding anything.
For fucks sake, I’m saying that the government should hold the means of production, not unions like what was suggested.
That is communism, I’m literally saying we should do communism
I’m just saying if we don’t do it right, it’s not going to solve anything and we’ll end up exactly where we are today, with all the problems and all the wealth inequality.
Trade Union members came to our city meetings to support data centers cause they wanted the short term revenue even though everyone else suffers for it. They didn’t care. Everyone one of them was “me me me” and “I need I need I want and I deserve and fuck the rest of you and future generations”
Really changed my opinion of them.
I get that company reps go in and spew their propaganda and make a bunch of empty promises. But ultimately these people are fully aware of the damage these centers do. Because they attended the meeting where this information was shared. And they just don’t give a fuck.
A friend of mine who is a mechanic says the trade schools and union groups are all like that. Very bigoted. Pretty racist too. And it’s rampant in the schools.
I’m sure it’s not the same for other unions.
But the trade unions … constantly support candidates against their own interest and apparently are a bunch of magas.
People still fall for AOC bs? Same goes for Bernie.
Elaborate?
Look at her rolling back pledges and word salad. Half the time I don’t even know what she’s talking about. She claims she’s progressive but still supports ‘defensive weapons’ for Israel. She claims to be anti-establishment despite being the establishment. She would fold and bend the knee under pressure. I don’t understand why don’t people demand better. Her and Sanders had a chance to prove voters but they keep being a disappointment because they’re not brave enough to stand up to Jeffries and the rest. They claim they’re different because that sounds good and it’s what people want to hear. Those are just words, though. They show with their actions that they would just continue with business as usual. I wish she would be it, but I’m afraid she’s just another disappointment. Somebody fresh and bold who is not afraid to stand up to bullies is desperately needed.
You gave a single actual example, which she has since changed her mind on after learning more about the situation and a whole lot of nonspecific language.
NTA but I did lose a lot of love for her when she voted against MTG’s bill to ban arms sales to Israel. It showed a kneejerk reaction to vetoing anything the other side did as opposed to a willingness to neutrally review any proposal.
What is your evidence for a “kneejerk reaction” being the specific reason she opposed that bill?
The fact that it was a very plain-language amendment proposing to do one of the most popular things on the left (block on arms to Israel), but she voted against it.
Oftentimes, amendments like those are proposed because they will kill the bill. If AOC wanted the bill to pass and knew that it could not pass with that amendment, then she would need to vote against the amendment even if she otherwise agrees with the content. That fact is another reason that amendments like this are suggested: they force a politician to vote against something that they otherwise support.
So when evaluating her vote in the amendment, you need to consider the broader context of the bill that was being voted on to understand what her vote means. Was the bill as a whole worthwhile, or should she have tanked it for ideological means?
Oh yes, because big unions are symbolic for productivity and lack of corruption.
I’d take a union worker over a business owner any day of the week
From my own experience, once union workers run the business, a lot of them quickly become worse than the ‘business owner’ and enforce the company policies harder. I’ve seen it many, many times. This is not a knock on union members. I worked out of a union hall for a large chunk of my life. I don’t anymore, but I am still a member.
How many private jets did large unions own before it became unpopular? Teamsters had 4.
No ones claiming there isn’t corruption in unions. There certainly is. Especially in the trade unions.
But unions in general are better than no unions.
Definitely.
