A young Socialist Alternative campaign worker just told me I had batterd spouse syndrome

[eridani]

"Obama just beat you up with TPA and then sent you a bunch of roses with the Iran deal, so now all is forgiven, right?" He will be working for Sanders of course, but thinks he and others can convince Bernie to run as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination--otherwise it's just a scam to herd progressives into supporting neoliberalism. And how can I even think about voting for a neoliberal like Clinton? I said that electing Sanders would be like putting your car in the Drive gear, electing Clinton would be like leaving it in neutral, but electing a Republican would be putting the car into reverse, possibly permanently. A mass movement would surely be in a better position with the car in neutral than in reverse, right? He didn't buy the analogy.

Not having a lot of luck so far convincing this crowd about the long-term value of strategic voting, but the thing about the Sanders campaign is that lots of alienated voters are getting involved right now in electoral politics (Note that outside of large urban areas, they won't be involved with third parties, but the same process is going on.) The longer they stay involved, the more likely they are to start thinking in the long run. Even if they don't want to be Democrats, they will stay involved in movement issue campaigns. IMO, this is the truly revolutionary aspect of the campaign.

[djean111]

1. Oh, the battered spouse thing is perfect. But I will never forget about the TPA and the trade

Last edited Fri Jul 17, 2015, 08:14 AM - Edit history (1)

agreements. Those things have altered my politics forever. I don't care what else happens. I think those things mean, eventually, austerity and privatization for everyone but the 1%.

My Reddit-based grandson says that the feeling is that if Bernie is not the candidate, there is no point in voting, because Wall Street wins, either way. Also - young folks never had to "evolve" over things like gay marriage, because they never were against it, it is just a symptom of what they consider old business as usual. I don't think that Third Way tactics - yeah, we are not that great, but keep voting for us and things will change - is going to play well. Just my thought.

People can blather all they want about "Party loyalty" - but Wasserman is the face of the Party, and that is not what they want, not her kind of Party. Oh, and proposing even more tax credits for "profit sharing" has been met with the cynicism it deserves. Trickle-down does not work, in any form. The corporations will just add those tax credits to all the other handouts and figure out how to share as little profit as possible.

The long run - I know what you mean, but I feel we are currently near the end of "the long run" for the Third Way. I think the trade agreements wrap it up.

[eridani]

2. I really do think that Sanders supporters, Democrats or not, are in it for the long haul n/t

[Divernan]

4. Damn straight about "profit sharing" being a scam!

It is time tested and long proven that corporations and even small, family owned businesses can "disappear" profits through a variety of creative management and/or accounting strategies - I've seen this ("disappearing" the profits) used in family-owned businesses to protect the company's assets in the event of a divorce. At the largest scale, regard how the Post Office has been required to prefund it's pension plan. That's wiped out its profits, for sure!

So, a business gets the tax credits for several years while reducing profits - say, stock buy-backs from board members/officers/top execs at very favorable prices; or pre-paying on long-term leases; or doing a once every 10 or 20 years equipment/facility upgrade, or adding new locations/factories/offices. Then when the business is really fat and happy, forego the tax credits.

You can be sure that if HRC supports it, in the long term it's business friendly, not worker friendly.

[CharlotteVale]

7. +1000000

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. We can win in a two person race.

A three person race is a lot trickier, even if Bernie does have crossover appeal, especially because he started the race as a Dem. I really don't know how much running as a Dem even helped him. We keep hearing stories of how local Dem offices are acting like they're just 'Hillary' offices, with no Bernie stuff at all. But he has said he won't go third party, and I think he'll keep that promise.

[n2doc]

5. Only way 3 person works for us is if that third person is Trump n/t

[Babel_17]

6. The young, can't live with them, can't live without them. :)

Sounds like you handled the encounter very well, and you don't need me to suggest that young activists are doing their job when they challenge their more established forerunners.

[jeff47]

8. Being in neutral lets the people blocking your path push you backwards.

Neutral is not park.

Someone has to be pushing forward. Democrats have spent decades in neutral, allowing the car to be slowly pushed backwards. Sometimes they've even gotten out and helped push.

Not having a lot of luck so far convincing this crowd about the long-term value of strategic voting

Might have something to do with 30 years of failure of strategic voting.

Given you emphasized that this was a younger person, I'm going to assume you're a Boomer. Remember back when you were young and really, really pissed off about a lot of issues, and all the old people told you to stop being unrealistic and support more moderate positions, like Humphrey's take on Vietnam?

How did that work for you? Did it make you really want to work for Humphrey? Did it make you want to run out and vote for neutral? I strongly suspect it didn't.

Well, you're now the old person telling the kid they have to accept neutral. Why do you expect it to work better this time?

[delrem]

9. Yes. This is what I was thinking too.

So then I looked up this thread and you'd posted the thought already.

'neutral' is like 'moderate' and 'centrist' in that it's worse than meaningless, it's the most fundamental lie.
It doesn't explain that the "centrist moderate neutral status quo" is a rigged game.

_________________

I'm still watching re-watching the Dem speeches on C-SPAN.

Wow, all the Dem functionaries with their aimless speechifying was a wet blanket!

For all the hype and all the presumption, I don't think Hillary Clinton made much of an impression. Nobody stood up. It was noticeable that she had prescribed pauses in her delivery where there was expectation of applause, and instead there were pauses with polite applause to fill in. She spoke mostly in banalities, listing out causes that she'd "fight for", but except for equal pay there were no specifics. It was just to be understood that she'd evolve into doing the right thing, once we gave her the gold ring.

Bernie had standing ovations.

I think this is causing consternation among "establishment centrist Dems".

[eridani]

10. The thing about "neutral" is that we can push forward as well

I worked for Humphrey reluctantly and without a lot of joy. mainly because I lived in the then heavily Republican downstate Illinois, and got to know a few of the old time Democrats and respected them for hanging in there under such unfavorable circumstances. It was a lot like working for Kerry in 2004--the "pragmatic" choice. Joyless fear can motivate people to an extent, but exuberant enthusiasm is much better.