"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst ThƤlmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, ThƤlmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. ThƤlmann famously said that ā€˜some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forestā€™ of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called ā€˜social fascists.ā€™

After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, ThƤlmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitlerā€™s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."

  • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    Ā·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Not funding and supplying a genocide seems to be a pretty clear and easy issue to change especially when 60%+ of democrats are in favor of it. Weā€™re already violating our own laws by continuing to do so.

    The democrats are already moving to the right even with the left continuing to vote for them. They think they can win over some centrists republicans (even though they canā€™t in a meaningful number) by adopting right wing policies while not losing the left because at the moment they know votes are guaranteed because ā€œrepublicans worseā€.

    Having voters in areas that effectively donā€™t matter this cycle show there displeasure in the genocide weā€™re enabling is the least we can do to counter it.

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      Ā·
      2 months ago

      They think they can win over some centrists republicans (even though they canā€™t in a meaningful number) by adopting right wing policies while not losing the left because at the moment they know votes are guaranteed because ā€œrepublicans worseā€.

      I donā€™t think they think that. I think weā€™ve swallowed that lie hook, line and sinker for 40 years and they will keep throwing the same bait as long as we keep biting while they keep moving right.

      • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        2 months ago

        Oh I agree, but thatā€™s was a whole other can of worms I wasnā€™t trying to get into at the moment since Iā€™ve got a busy and long work day thatā€™s still not over unfortunately lol

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      Ā·
      2 months ago

      I directly answered your question, and you seem to have ignored what I said. Plus you really should reexamine your assumptions about the importance of Gaza, the ā€œeaseā€ of withdrawing support, how much Democrats have moved rightward, and how many centrist Republicans vote for Democrats.

      Your level of frustration with the process is inversely proportional to your awareness of these trends, of which Democratic leaders are likely well aware. Moreover, you seem to be valuing the strongly-held opinions of voters in non-swing states (what youā€™re calling ā€œdeep blue statesā€ or ā€œareas that effectively donā€™t matterā€) more highly than the maybe-less-strongly held opinions of voters in swing states. If 5% of Democratic voters in California want sushi, and 5% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania want steak, Iā€™m picking steak and telling the California voters to take a hike. Their opinion doesnā€™t even register on my radar thanks to the electoral consequences of pissing off the Pennsylvanians who wanted steak.

      • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        Ā·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I didnā€™t ignore what you said. My retort to

        No. If 5% of my voting base sits out over a single issue, Iā€™m going to lose my interest in trying to triangulate their support and move in another direction to identify a more persuadable bloc of voters. That goes more if the abandonment is repetitive, and if the issues constantly change, or if the issue is something I canā€™t bend on for electoral reasons. If one bloc of voters is easier to please than another, then Iā€™m moving in their direction, even if itā€™s rightward. Unfortunately itā€™s winner-take-all, and youā€™re either in power or youā€™re not. There are no half-wins.

        Was that if itā€™s a clear issue like the genocide Israel is carrying out that has a lot of strong opposition to the Democrats current position it really isnā€™t all that hard to triangulate what the cause is.

        Itā€™s been known itā€™s THE issue the democrats are losing support for given the coverage of the non committed movement. As for how tough it is to Itā€™s literally not support a genocide thatā€™s how you please that group. Itā€™s literally following our current laws to not supply and fund a country committing a genocide.

        the importance of Gaza

        Literally from your own link ā€œthough some questioned whether it would push them not to vote at all.ā€ In a thread where people are complaining about a small amount of people voting third party could lose the election for democrats in swing states I guess it is an important issue if itā€™s driving even some people in swing states to not vote.

        Also when the non committed movement has more support in some states than the margin of victory in 2020 I would say itā€™s pretty important.

        the ā€œeaseā€ of withdrawing support

        So genocide is alright as long as theyā€™re an enemy of Iran, thatā€™s your argument? Israel is literally the one escalating the situation in the area, pulling their support or at least threatening to do so until the genocide is stopped would actually deescalate the situation in the region.

        how much Democrats have moved rightward

        I donā€™t disagree theyā€™ve moved left on most social issues when looking at at that long of a time span thatā€™s in the article you linked. Iā€™m talking this election cycle Kamala has clearly shifted right from the policies she ran on in 2016.

        how many centrist Republicans vote for Democrats.

        In 1 election, thatā€™s the sample size. Thatā€™s not a trend and itā€™s against Trump who is an historically awful candidate for moderates to try and stomach. Theyā€™ll be back voting R once heā€™s gone so itā€™s not a good long term strategy when youā€™re alienating what should be your base to the point their considering not voting or voting third party.

        Moreover, you seem to be valuing the strongly-held opinions of voters in non-swing states (what youā€™re calling ā€œdeep blue statesā€ or ā€œareas that effectively donā€™t matterā€) more highly than the maybe-less-strongly held opinions of voters in swing states. If 5% of Democratic voters in California want sushi, and 5% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania want steak, Iā€™m picking steak and telling the California voters to take a hike. Their opinion doesnā€™t even register on my radar thanks to the electoral consequences of pissing off the Pennsylvanians who wanted steak.

        You completely misunderstood what my example was trying to get across. Iā€™m not valuing non swing state voters opinions more than swing state voters.

        I understand that the swing state voters are going to have an outsized role in what each party pushes. Tactically I would be saying the voters in swing states especially should be witholding their vote unless the democrats stop supporting Israelā€™s genocide since it would be more leverage but obviously trump getting elected isnā€™t a great alternative which is why I didnā€™t mention that since thatā€™s a risk.

        What I was saying is that given that non swing states you can safely vote third party to show your displeasure in the genocide weā€™re supporting and possibly shed light that itā€™s got a large amount of importance to voters.

        Edit: formatting since Iā€™m on mobile and at work.