4 ms·

Oh cool, you're in the Seattle area? I moved away from there this summer. > I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of backseat drivers I assume this is ref

by 0x262d 6y ago

Oh cool, you're in the Seattle area? I moved away from there this summer. > I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of backseat drivers I assume this is referring to her being accountable to Socialist Alternative? I understand why this sometimes seems weird to people. But it's impossible get anywhere as a politician without a base of support. Kshama is open about who hers is. Corporate Democrats (and Republicans of course) are not, and tend to surprise people after the fact with their governance when they refuse to, for instance, tax the rich, or hedge on the question indefinitely. I think Kshama's ability to campaign for things and then consistently fight for them after getting elected is closely related to having SA, to not just do necessarily collective political analysis, but also do the work of mass campaigns. By contrast, traditional politicians also offload a lot of political work, but to an array of personally appointed policymakers, lobbyists, private-company executives, and others; while SA is democratically run, the corporate lobbying groups are only accountable to capital. I don't think there is a sustainable path in between these two options.

specialist 6y ago
Democratic Party members mostly hate their politicians. They're often seen as parasites. They just use the party to get elected. Dems would love to have the kind of relationship Socialist Alternative has with Sawant. Though, in truth, the delegation for Ballard & North Seattle has been pretty good during my direct involvement. Now that I've played the game a little bit, I don't understand the Corporate Democrat label. As Jesse James said, he robbed the banks because that's where the money is. Same for fund raising. That's been slowly changing on the left as parties wane and interest groups rise. That guy from QuarkXpress was an early pioneer of this model. I now think of The Struggle as entities defending the status quo (establishment, duopoly) and everyone else storming the castle. That's neither bad or good; it just is. And per Francis Fukamaya's vetocracy thesis, the connection between our party system and the widespread dysfunction in governance is fairly loose. Right now any one can do anything without much fear of repercussions, esp on the left. Said another way, I agree with Ezra Klein's thesis that if we make the (lowercase) democratic reforms to enable majoritarian rule, then the party system can grow to actually mean something. I recognize that I'm way to the left of most participants. I have strong affinity for MLK, David Graeber, Jonathan Rawls, and maybe some others. I started as a Green and still (probably) believe in its platform. But Nader nuked that party. (I'm still mad.) And like most Democrats, I joined with the intent to oppose Republicans. aka Negative partisanship. I think this setup is terrible. Back when I was attending all the third party meetups (Greens, Socialists, Libertarians), I was struck that those members were making an affirmative choice, standing for what they believed in. That's a much more healthy approach. To feel that vibe, I've focused more on issue based orgs, vs party politics. Gay marriage, weed, sustainability, etc. So I thank you for sharing some of your Socialist Alternative experiences. I need to go check them out.

by 0x262d 6y ago

specialist 6y ago

Democratic Party members mostly hate their politicians. They're often seen as parasites. They just use the party to get elected. Dems would love to have the kind of relationship Socialist Alternative has with Sawant. Though, in truth, the delegation for Ballard & North Seattle has been pretty good during my direct involvement. Now that I've played the game a little bit, I don't understand the Corporate Democrat label. As Jesse James said, he robbed the banks because that's where the money is. Same for fund raising. That's been slowly changing on the left as parties wane and interest groups rise. That guy from QuarkXpress was an early pioneer of this model. I now think of The Struggle as entities defending the status quo (establishment, duopoly) and everyone else storming the castle. That's neither bad or good; it just is. And per Francis Fukamaya's vetocracy thesis, the connection between our party system and the widespread dysfunction in governance is fairly loose. Right now any one can do anything without much fear of repercussions, esp on the left. Said another way, I agree with Ezra Klein's thesis that if we make the (lowercase) democratic reforms to enable majoritarian rule, then the party system can grow to actually mean something. I recognize that I'm way to the left of most participants. I have strong affinity for MLK, David Graeber, Jonathan Rawls, and maybe some others. I started as a Green and still (probably) believe in its platform. But Nader nuked that party. (I'm still mad.) And like most Democrats, I joined with the intent to oppose Republicans. aka Negative partisanship. I think this setup is terrible. Back when I was attending all the third party meetups (Greens, Socialists, Libertarians), I was struck that those members were making an affirmative choice, standing for what they believed in. That's a much more healthy approach. To feel that vibe, I've focused more on issue based orgs, vs party politics. Gay marriage, weed, sustainability, etc. So I thank you for sharing some of your Socialist Alternative experiences. I need to go check them out.