You could just as easily blame the SDP for not joining the KDP instead, since the KDP was reacting to the same failures of government the voters of the NSDAP were.
Yes, absolutely. Responsibility can be shared; almost any big disaster is a result of multiple overlapping causes where any number of people could have taken action to make it less likely or prevent it.
In fact, I think the Democrats are a lot more responsible for creating the conditions that led to the rise of Trump than the SDP. The SDP at least had genuine hardship imposed on their country from outside, whereas the establishment Democrats ever since the 1990s have simply been selling out the working class, in an economy that’s raking in money hand over fist, because they could and they assumed that nothing bad would ever come of it (to anyone that they thought mattered.)
I especially don’t attribute blame to citizen voters supporting the KDP, because not only does that not matter as much in a parliamentary system, they’re also reacting to the same failures of government that the NSDAP were.
So no, I don’t find that argument convincing, and I likely would not have supported the SDP given the availability of other options.
Okay, that’s fair. But what if there weren’t other options? If we used a parliamentary system in the US, and we were talking about voting for the Democrats or else a genuine leftist party, I would be 100% in agreement with you about voting for the left instead of the Democrats.
What if Germany used the FPTP system, and you were voting for Hindenburg or Hitler directly to lead the country? Do you think that someone in that hypothetical election who refused to vote for Hindenburg in 1932, because he hadn’t done enough to earn the vote, would still feel justified in that decision in 1945?
(Biden isn’t Hindenburg; Hindenburg doesn’t have a direct analogue but he would be more someone like John McCain IMO, but that’s not directly relevant to the question I don’t think.)
Okay, that’s fair. But what if there weren’t other options? If we used a parliamentary system in the US, and we were talking about voting for the Democrats or else a genuine leftist party, I would be 100% in agreement with you about voting for the left instead of the Democrats.
What if Germany used the FPTP system, and you were voting for Hindenburg or Hitler directly to lead the country? Do you think that someone in that hypothetical election who refused to vote for Hindenburg in 1932, because he hadn’t done enough to earn the vote, would still feel justified in that decision in 1945?
I wouldn’t be committing to voting for Hindenburg 7 months before casting a ballot, especially if doing so not only doesn’t address the underlying problem that created the NSPD’s popularity but would also likely continue to contribute to those conditions.
You’re also assuming that Hindenburg would have won a second election against Hitler, and I don’t think that’s a given. Nor do I think Biden winning against Trump is a given either, when he’s still contributing to the conditions that brought popularity to Trump. He’s done quite a lot to undermine his own campaign message, and those of us telling him he’s gon a loose if he doesn’t reverse course are actually helping him, assuming he takes the opportunity he’s being given.
Protesting biden now wouldn’t be effective if we all -publicly- got in line and said “we’ll sure, he’s complicit in genocide but we’re all still voting for him anyway”. That would be quite a dumb way to protest and put pressure on him to get anything done, wouldn’t you say?
I wouldn’t be committing to voting for Hindenburg 7 months before casting a ballot, especially if doing so not only doesn’t address the underlying problem that created the NSPD’s popularity but would also likely continue to contribute to those conditions.
Yeah, I feel you on this. I think we’re just looking at it from two different perspectives.
I don’t think Biden’s on Lemmy. I’m not looking at this like he’s going to read my messages and think “Okay I got mozz locked in, I don’t have to change my Gaza policy now.” I’m just saying my thought process out loud; I’m going to vote for Hindenburg instead of Hitler pretty much whatever else happens. I’m not trying to do some kind of bluff where I claim that I’m undecided as a way of putting pressure on, not explicitly telling the Biden campaign that I’m committed to him, so that he’ll be forced into different behavior patterns on Gaza.
But the other way does make sense to me. Like the “uncommitted” voters in the primary, or protests at his events because he’s abetting mass murder, that makes sense to me. If I were directly in contact with Biden, would I try to do this artifice of pretending I was undecided because of Gaza, that even though Trump is directly supportive of monsters who are 10 times worse and more powerful than Netanyahu, abetting Netanyahu is so bad that I might not vote for Biden? So as to put more pressure on him to change his policy? IDK, maybe. I am not a political specialist but it seems like maybe that’s a sensible way to do it.
Protesting biden now wouldn’t be effective if we all -publicly- got in line and said “we’ll sure, he’s complicit in genocide but we’re all still voting for him anyway”. That would be quite a dumb way to protest and put pressure on him to get anything done, wouldn’t you say?
Yeah, I get that. I do think that direct action on Gaza is probably more effective than just typing out on Lemmy that you’re uncommitted in your voting, and I think doing the latter (if it’s a bluff, which it would be in my case) runs a little bit of a risk of some other voter reading it and taking it seriously and being swayed to not vote for Biden and abetting mass murder much much worse than that in Gaza. But basically, the core of what you’re saying, it does make sense to me, yes.
and I think doing the latter (if it’s a bluff, which it would be in my case) runs a little bit of a risk of some other voter reading it and taking it seriously and being swayed to not vote for Biden and abetting mass murder much much worse than that in Gaza.
This is what makes a protest effective. This is why I’ve been quoting mlk and Douglass and Malcolm x. If there’s no threat of harm then no liberty will ever be granted.
Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.
Seems to me like you simply don’t believe this particular cause is worth threatening this particular harm. Which is fine I guess, but it just makes your claims of caring about it sound a lot like white liberals in 1963 telling mlk ‘sure, we agree, but now’s not the time, not like this’.
Were making it everyone’s problem by protesting, that’s the point.
