view the rest of the comments
Boycott US
Overview:
The community dedicated to boycotting the US until they stop fascism, restore full democracy and start following international law.
Americans have a moral obligation to resist Donald Trump and project 2025 at every turn.
America is a flawed democracy currently being ruled by oligarchs. Stop the backslide! Dont let America become the next Hungary.
America needs to challenge the court rulings of citizens united v. fec and shelby county v. holder, protect the media, implement independent district drawing, and the single transferable vote so they don't end up having people stay home in life-changing elections because they cannot vote for their favourite candidate.
Join 50501.chat to fight back!
Related communities:
Boycott:
!buycanadian@lemmy.ca
Activism:
!antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world
There would have to be a party of inspiring politicians that can inspire some confidence that something will positively change. People vote for change.
Obama ran on the idea that the old guard, the old government, had to be changed and he would bring in a completely different government.
So did Trump.
So did Bush.
So did Clinton.
So did The Other Bush...
And so on. The only thing that engages voters is blatant admission that the US government is horrifically formed, inefficient, and objectively is not a representative democracy by any possible definition of those words separately or together; and the promise they will fight to make it more of a representative democracy.
When Kamala Harris came out and said 'oh the Biden administration has made everything so much better so we're going to just do more of the same' when every single demographic under a 400k net worth was objectively worse off under Biden than they were under Trump (yes, yes, extenuating circumstances, blah blah recovering from a global pandemic Trump would have made worse) people could not get behind that message.
When Harris promised to stay the course, her campaign ended. When Biden promised to keep doing what he was doing, his campaign ended. It wouldn't have mattered if the bastard child of the literal incarnation of the Evangelical Christian Devil and Hitler transformed into an eldritch cosmic being that turned every person that gazed into it into a statue ran as the republican candidate, it would have won against the Harris campaign.
At the very least any candidate that wants to win has to acknowledge how incredibly awful the modern American has it. We have worse wealth inequality in the US than at any point in WORLD history. Slaves in the American South had less wealth inequality towards the richest kings of Europe than we comparatively have towards the owners of the US.
Any Candidate then has to, at the very least, pay lip service to the idea that drastic, severe, violent change needs to happen. There is no more incrementalism. There is no more 'lesser evil.' There is no more 'we sacrifice our generation so the next can maybe have it better but we're not going to do anything to realise that anytime soon.' We are a full fucking century past that idea. We are a century deep into that idea. It has not worked. It will not work.
tl;dr Promise change, don't have a history of promising change and then doing nothing, don't shy away from violent rhetoric, don't 'play politics' and be nice to the ruling class, don't pretend incrementalism or lesser evilism works when we have a century of proof that it doesn't.
That's an interesting theory. But how does it explain Obama's (or other presidents') two terms?
Harris couldn't say she was drastically different because she was part of that previous administration.
Look at their opponents and their campaign. Let's take Obama, because he's the liberal darling despite running roughly the same platform as Ronald Reagan;
Mitt Romney did not run on a platform of change, in fact he was against an opponent who made 'Change' their whole political identity. Romney ran on a campaign of 'Return to normal,' which was just Bush in the mind of political base. Romney didn't identify any of the proletariat's problems, didn't promise a change from Obama or Bush, didn't identify how exactly he would improve things.
He ran a campaign essentially saying 'change is bad, this change was bad, I strapped my dog to the top of my car while it had the shits and continued driving for at least 500 miles, I promise to return to the policies that caused you to lose your house.'
This, unsurprisingly, lost him the vote. This is also why Obama 'didn't break the brains of the right' or 'cause the racists to come out of the woodwork.' Those are mischaracterizations of the right's response to Obama based on the extremely loud minority that are Fox News viewers. If either case were true, Romney would have won.
But Romney didn't, Trump eventually did. The only effective difference in their campaign was that Trump promised change and was believable as an agent of change.