LogFAQs > #980110113

EPR-radar posted...

I actually see it the opposite way around. Hope and inspiration is great when it happens, but it is fickle and it's a rare talent for candidates to actually be good at campaigning on it (and delivering on hope and change is even more difficult, given the reality of the Republican menace).

What is it going to take to peacefully defeat the GOP and get back to something resembling normal politics in the US? The only answer I can see is the GOP consistently losing in national elections, to the point where it really does have to reform or die.

Which is the easier sales job?

A) running on hope and change for 12+ years with little/no actual progress to show for it because the GOP is still strong enough to block progress at least that long, or

B) trying to grow a solid D base for 12+ years that understands that the highest priority is opposing the GOP menace every November, in every election, at every level, and that all hope of future progress is contingent on first dealing with the Republican menace? Sure, it looks like running only on "Republicans are awful", but that is the truth. It is also true that Republicans have a lot of power, and it's going to take a long, hard campaign to do something about that.

I thoroughly disagree. Hope doesn't just come from one candidate or focusing exclusively on electoral politics. It comes from an orientation towards and understanding of politics that then drives your communications, policy, electoral strategy etc.

People develop hope when they think they can influence their futures in a meaningful way. It comes from encouraging people to think and take action in democratic ways. And promising that you'll be the avatar of that already existing movement. That last part is what FDR did, it's what Reagan did, it's what Trump means to his people. It comes from the bottom up and the promises, expectations of effort from the people, and results all have to match up.

You can't match all the forces, resources, and organization of capital, religion, militarism, racism, sexism, etc with "vote every 2-4 years for candidates that don't, won't, and can't even promise to change or fix anything you really care about."

To match those forces, you need deeply organized forces of your own that cut across all potential divides, but organizations of that nature will not be easy to control and manage from above and will make big demands, and if those demands aren't met, they'll become dispirited and disorganized again. The only solid basis for consistent positive results in electoral politics is a party built on that basis and focused on supporting, amplifying, and being led by those organizations.

Instead, the Democrats just want individuals and organizations that they have no obligations to, that expect nothing from them, but that dutifully vote in huge numbers regardless of how well or poorly the party is doing at addressing people's problems.

What people in topics like this try to sell is that "no your definitely life won't improve in any meaningful way if you do X, but in some abstract way that you may not actually fathom, it'll get much worse if you don't do X or instead do Y."

That'll work on some, but it has a variety of different effects. It produces positive anger, negative anger, disbelief, indifference, apathy, blackpilling, suspicion. Only one of those is useful for Democrats.