Ancestors

Written by JoeChip on 2025-01-06 at 02:57

Let's take a step back and reassess Duverger's Law & the idea that 3rd parties cannot succeed.

Its truth partially depends on the assumption that (D) & (R) are immutable categories that will exist forever.

This is historically false. There are periodic inflection points every century or so when existing political arrangements become so ossified they simply fail.

[#]PoliticalParties

/1

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JoeChip@mstdn.social

Written by JoeChip on 2025-01-06 at 03:04

Such an inflection point occurred in the pre-Civil-War era as divisions around slavery became too deep to sustain a functioning republic. This allowed the new Republican Party to step in and replace the Whigs.

Another inflection point occurred after the Great Depression. In this case the Dems were astute enough to seize the issue and run with it - revitalizing and extending its lifespan.

/2

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JoeChip@mstdn.social

Written by JoeChip on 2025-01-06 at 03:14

We see that there two possible responses to a fundamental paradigm shift.

1. Man the citadels and guard against any change in the status quo.

2. Catch the wave and ride the tide sweeping into the future.

The Democrats have chosen the first option, despite considerable internal discontent.

/3

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JoeChip@mstdn.social

Toot

Written by JoeChip on 2025-01-06 at 03:26

My assumption is that the US now confronts another historic inflection - equal in danger to the Civil War and the Great Depression.

In context this presents us with an unexpected opportunity: a realistic chance of defeating the devastating stranglehold of the institutional Dem Party.

This can be achieved by either overthrow or replacement. There are no other options that address the existential nature of the crisis.

/4

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JoeChip@mstdn.social

Descendants

Written by JoeChip on 2025-01-06 at 03:43

Both replacement and takeover are options fraught with danger - actual physical danger.

Sufficient voting in primaries is critical to the replacement strategy, but it wouldn't work as a normal electoral operation. It would require an organized campaign of outside pressure to have even a remote chance. General strikes, withholding party donations, physical occupation of strategic influencers (like TV stations), feet on the ground.

/5

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JoeChip@mstdn.social

Written by JoeChip on 2025-01-06 at 03:57

If you're an advocate of revamping the existing Dem Party keep in mind it won't be a gradualist project - the donor class wins that kind of fight every time.

Instead you will need to mount a strong offensive against current leadership. This is fully as difficult as creating a new party ex nihilo.

It also risks damaging the electoral chances of normie dems. I suspect even AOC wouldn't go that route.

/6

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JoeChip@mstdn.social

Written by Violet Madder on 2025-01-06 at 04:05

@JoeChip

(thanks BTW for this very cogent analysis, very refreshing after all the usual "just VBNMW!!!" yowling I waded through today)

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from violetmadder@kolektiva.social

Written by Violet Madder on 2025-01-06 at 04:02

@JoeChip

MORE dangerous than those. The whole biosphere is at stake now.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from violetmadder@kolektiva.social

Written by JoeChip on 2025-01-06 at 04:05

@violetmadder

Yes! A long-term political struggle is problematic in terms of survival.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from JoeChip@mstdn.social