The Left can’t sit out the 2028 Democratic primary. If AOC chooses not to run for president, Eric Blanc argues that socialists should run a working-class candidate — even an unknown one — who can inject anti-billionaire politics into the race.
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
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:
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:
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