“What’s funny about that is they assume my ambition is positional. They assume my ambition is a title or a seat. My ambition is way bigger than that. My ambition is to change this country. Presidents come and go, elected officials come and go, single payer healthcare is forever.”
You’re not wrong. But I also think this point of view is perceived as a kind of auto-fellatio.
I think the negative reaction from us, the great unwashed, is due to people being so sick of political processes devolving into a meta-game that revolves primarily around the ability to think cynically and act tactically.
Meanwhile we’re out in the world, dealing with fallout from actions in that sphere that don’t make any kind of sense to the material reality of most people. People with rent to pay and groceries to afford and gas to pump.
Playing 4-D chess with the law of averages, playing the long game, and cornering other narcissistic kitten-eaters in saying and supporting things that, on their face, sound horrible… We’re just not sophisticated enough to understand it’s part of the process. We have problems that need solving right now and whatever tactical victory that moves an abstract chess piece forward doesn’t seem to do anything to remedy that.
I take your points, but we’re in the pre primary stage. If that’s not the time to be critical if the details, when do we get to be?
Also, it’s a political forum. It’s supposed to be a safe space for auto fellating in these topics. And maybe I misread or over read, but that auto fellating thing, it’s the critique I’m making of AOC too. She become too calculating, too much like Pelosi.
I also think AOC can fix these issues, but they were issues she had 2 years ago too. and they aren’t issues her cohort shares, they are unique to her.
Bernie takes hard interviews. Ilhan takes hard interviews. Khanna takes hard interviews.
AOC only goes for softball safe space media opportunities any more. And she’s weaker because if it. She can fix that issue and strengthen her game in this regard, but that’s on her.
Fair enough points, I can take them at face value. I just grew up very disillusioned with leftist infighting generally, so I tend to see any leftward scrutiny with a jaundiced eye. In a first past the post system, the side that is least critical of their candidate is going to mainly win I feel, and though I know the value of being critical too well, living in this system makes me of two minds about it.
I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion, and I’m genuinely interested to know how you arrived at it. Like I really want to know how you arrived there.
I’m interested because, I don’t think of it as a “sides” issue; what it takes for a Republican/ conservative to win an election and what it takes for a Dem/ progressive to win, they have practically nothing to do with one another. Its two entirely different sets of cohorts you have to appeal to, its two different ways of viewing and thinking about politics and power. I also don’t believe that voters exist along a left-right spectrum. I think thats an appealing trope to entrench liberalism, one political class, of which both the Republican and traditional Democratic parties are a part of. So if you think along a unary spectrum to try and understand what people believe, you’ll make very serious mistakes when you try to predict their behavior.
In my view, if you are running on the left, its the politician that withstands the most criticism, and stays standing, who is the strongest candidate. Graham Platner or Mamdani is an excellent example of this. And excellent examples of avoiding criticism, Hillary, Biden, Harris, they all led to republican victory. Criticism makes candidates stronger. Allowing them to persist uncritically leaves them, and you if you are they’re supporter, vulnerable.
That being said, what it takes for a Democrat to win vs Republican? Absolutely different things. Apples and bananas.