Ocasio-Cortez Loses the Democratic Socialists’ Endorsement Over Israel
Ocasio-Cortez Loses the Democratic Socialists’ Endorsement Over Israel
The New York congresswoman was blamed for not being supportive enough of the Palestinian cause and efforts to end the war in Gaza.
The Democratic Socialists of America pulled its endorsement of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York this week, accusing the progressive congresswoman of being insufficiently supportive of the Palestinian cause and efforts to end the war in Gaza..
Her approach has increasingly strained her relationship with some of the left’s most strident critics of Israel. When she rallied last month in the Bronx with Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Jamaal Bowman, dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators angry over her endorsement of Mr. Biden chanted “You’re a fraud, A.O.C.”
You're viewing a single thread.
This is a good example of why I left DSA. They are averse to pragmatism. They see the world in purely theoretical terms. They form their policies according to some hypothetical ideal, instead of reality.
The epitome of a black and white outlook of the universe. Reality is messy.
But a Blue and Red outlook is a-okay?
Well that's the spectrum for American politics so I guess so? You're not saying anything profound lil man.
For some Genocide and Apartheid is a red line.
If you believe that is a radical statement for the left it might be time to reconsider the definition of left.
For some, it’s a red line letting full-strength Hitler style genocidal authoritarian fascism take over the most powerful country in the world, and resisting it is a better idea than pointless gestures of token resistance to somewhat more minor world power misbehavior, which ultimately benefit literally nobody at all
But everybody’s different
And for others Biden is already that Hitler style Genocidal authoritarian.
Demanding to not support Genocide is not a big ask. If Democrats are not even willing to abide by that they don't believe in that 2025 talk as much as they claim.
Your definition of Hitler is clearly very different from my definition of Hitler
When I think of the bad things Hitler did it was the Genocide that bothered me more than his dictatorship.
I will say, the instant Biden puts 6 million civilians to death and starts a war that kills 70 million people I'm definitely planning not to vote for him.
Or!
I know, when people write books about fascism they write about all the weapons Hitler sold to other countries and how that was the real problem and what those other countries did with the weapons. Everyone knows such a thing was un heard of before Hitler, and now under Biden, it's coming again. There are whole museums devoted to Hitler's weapons sales.
Or!
I know... some of the holocaust survivors who were alive in 2016 had these sort of chilling interviews where they talked about the eerie similarities between Biden and Hitler and how they really hoped people would realize how important it was not to vote for Biden. They didn't really put a lot of attention into who his opponent was, because they said that's not the point.
Take your pick, this one is a choose your own adventure
Wheres your red line between directly causing 6 million deaths and heavily funding and even sending airplanes to people who have killed 20k women and children. Because if one thinks its only genocide if you're directly ordering the death of 6 million, you're going to miss a lot of genocides that are clearly happening.
How about Russia and Ukraine? By the tone of your comment Id asusme that wouldn't qualify to you either. So how far is to far? Or it is literally anything less than 6 million isn't it?
Wheres your red line between directly causing 6 million deaths and heavily funding and even sending airplanes to people who have killed 20k women and children. Because if one thinks its only genocide if you're directly ordering the death of 6 million, you're going to miss a lot of genocides that are clearly happening.
It’s actually a really good question. I think every iteration of US foreign policy I’ve been alive for has been horrific. I think a good way is, once it’s reduced to a choice between 2 options, pick the one that’s less bad if there is a massive visible difference (as there is in this election). And then, also, exercise pressure to push the less-bad option to be better (the uncommitted vote, calling and opposing aid for Israel, pushing in future primaries for candidates that are less bad).
Trying to push for better than Biden’s current standard I think is a great idea. The only part I object to is risking letting things get 10 times worse because of a pointless grandstanding gesture, while pretending that you’re helping.
Ukraine I definitely think we should send help to also, yes, and more than we have.
It’s not a matter of “this is where my line for something being bad,” it’s just that once it’s down to 2 options, you can pick the one that’s less bad and will save a bunch of lives instead of waiting for the US government to start having an enlightened foreign policy all of a sudden by magic, and then getting involved.
Russia is currently committing genocide in Ukraine.
China is supporting Russia's war in Ukraine, but that does not make them genocidaires themselves. It means they bear some guilt by proxy for continuing to support Russia despite its genocidal behavior, but that is distinctly not the same as being genocidaires themselves (on the issue of Ukraine, I mean, obvious the Uyghur Genocide is ongoing by the CCP). They bear guilt for supplying genocidaires.
Likewise, Israel is currently committing genocide in Palestine. The US is supporting Israel's war in Palestine, which is inexcusable and a black mark on the souls of everyone who has endorsed it and will remain a shame for the rest of our existence, but are not genocidaires ourselves (on the issue of Palestine). We bear guilt for supplying genocidaires.
I can understand the distinction you're making and by no means do I think a US citizen somehow bears more responsibility than IDF of their leaders. But at the end of the day actual money and value I spent my labor to create is being used to materially support the artillery of a nation I consider to be engaged in genocide or at least ethnic cleansing and no part of that will ever sit right with me. I understand Trump is worse, I understand this is how the US has treated Palestine since forever, but to me that means there's no reason for me to pledge and signal that I'm gonna vote Biden no matter what. I want them to know that if they get my vote it will be just barely and something they need to earn every damn election. It's literally the least I can do while I'm partially funding a genocide. I will stay undecided until the ballots in the damn scanner.
And at the end of the day I don't even live in a swing state. So even if my little way of protest has no impact, it's likely because my vote had no impact in the first place. At least my senators know Im pissed at them. Resent the letters I sent when the Sheikh Jara incident happened and said if they had at least tried to hold Israel accountable they wouldn't be so emboldened to indiscriminately kill.
I want them to know that if they get my vote it will be just barely and something they need to earn. It’s literally the least I can do while I’m partially funding a genocide.
Oh, okay, and the Ukrainians that are going to be subjected to genocide when Trump gets into office? Do they get the 'literal least you can do', or is it only Palestinians which get that, and Ukrainians need to 'earn' your vote for Biden too?
What we're doing is horrible. Regardless of guilt, however, there is no realistic situation in which a Dem ticket in November losing is anything but catastrophic for everyone, Palestinians included. There's not a question of 'earning' anything. It's not a game, Biden is not a player or a stripper. It's a question of what will happen after one of the two options get into office - supplying Israel while wagging our finger impotently; or giving Israel everything they ask for, Ukraine being genocided, and American minorities being subjected to horrific conditions, very likely including our very own genocide?
If you're undecided at all between those two outcomes... I have nothing I can say to you, except that you had better fucking not ever claim you 'support' democracy, the rights of minorities in the US, or the right of a people to resist genocide again. All you oppose is feeling bad about your government's budget, and want to absolve yourself of the responsibility that comes with being a citizen in a somewhat democratic polity.
I don't think an organization as small and relatively insignificant as DSA has the luxury of being so idealistic. What strategic benefit comes from alienating your minimally influential organization from one of its most high profile political supporters? By all means, draw a red line, but you might find that you're pretty lonely behind it.
Seeing as the elections are coming down to having to scrape every small party to get over the line the DSA suddenly becomes quite significant. As is the uncommitted movement in Michigan which Biden has ignored.
Look I truly hate that this is the situation we are in, but, If you want to have an absolutist point of view about Israel then your carbon footprint better be negative. Like home steader, grow your own food, no kids, no car, hunt for meat, no online shopping, etc.
Because if not, youre indirectly but actively contributing to the suffering of millions of innocent and exploited people in underdeveloped nations. Not to mention millions of animals and plants.
Innocent people will suffer famine, drought, and natural disasters. They will die by the hundreds of thousands in the coming decades. These victims will be people who did not participate in the modern consumerist economy by buying products from companies who actively deceive the public, practice regulatory capture, as well as bribing and corruption scandals all in the name of short term shareholder gains.
It's Absolutely hypocritical to condemn people who want to prevent a second trump term and thus recognize a need to vote for an imperfect Biden when there's no way you meet the threshold required to have clean hands in regards to the climate crisis.
The gut instinct is to say "well what can I possibly do about climate change" and that's exactly my point. All you can do is limit the impact.
You can't reconcile excusing yourself from your part in climate change, however minor it may be, if you're trying to uphold such a strict standard against Biden and Biden voters. why? because you already know the consequences if Biden fails to retain the presidency. You know what trump victory means for minorities, lgbtq, the climate, etc. and with project 2025 it likely will be way worse this time.
You don't get to look back and say you weren't at fault if Trump wins because your ballot didn't say trump. You know a vote for 3rd party or a no vote is a vote for Trump in the current system. That makes you complicit if he wins. Believe me, I went through that in 2016. I regret it.
This is an extreme metaphor to help you see that sometimes you have to acknowledge that terrible things are happening but limiting the damage might be all you can do.
You can vote for Biden in November and still criticize him and Democrats the entire time. That's not being a hypocrite.
Letting trump win and pretending you didn't contribute to all the additional damage that follows is.
Literally, yes.
The problem is people are too fucking stupid to understand that they are flirting with forever losing the ability to improve society in the United States because they want to be obtuse and claim some moral high ground over Israel.
All while allowing violence against women, minorities, and lgbtq domestically by helping trump win. It's so hypocritical.
Well said
Almost as if there is a cunning and self-serving reason why genocide in Gaza is an absolutist red line, but the existential threat of climate change, genocide in Ukraine or China, mass deportations in the US, political violence and the collapse of democracy in the US, or Trump’s vocal and full throated support for genocide in Gaza among many other places, are not “red lines” for a decision about what would be best to do in this election.
It's insane.
I truly regret voting 3rd party in 2016. I thought I was really doing something by "punishing" the DNC for conspiring against Bernie.
I have some empathy in that sense, but the difference is that I truly didn't think it would be as bad as it was. That's the only defense I have for my vote then. That ignorance is gone. We all know exactly what will happen because w have 4 years of data and that's the BEST case. Selling state secrets, gutting crucial organizations like the EPA, tax cuts for wealthy corporate friends, extorting Ukraine for dirt on Biden, packing the supreme Court with justices literally unfit to sit on the bench....and on and on.
That's the BEST CASE.
then read project 2025 and find out just how serious and insane the people who are trying to run the show for him this time actually are.....Jesus.
You aren't allowed to have morals/ red-lines according to the political "wisdom" of lemmy.world.
You must compromise with them, but they don’t have to compromise with you.
This entire discussion is about how compromise is necessary you fucking moron.
Try compromising with the emotion called anger.
There are plenty of political organizations for whom pragmatism* is their core political philosophy. Its not at all part of the philosophy of DSA. There is plenty of space for both. If you want an organization that is focused on pragmatism, there are plenty to align with. Specifically, organizations like DSA are explicitly idealistic, and the principals of socialism are also explicitly idealistic, which is effectively in opposition to pragmatism. If you are a pragmatist or one that espouses pragmatism in political philosophy, the fuck were you doing with the DSA? Its an intentionally and explicitly idealistic organization.
*I assume you know that pragmatism is a political philosophy and identity of its own.
Pragmatism isn't only an ideology, it's also a methodology or an approach to problem solving. In that regard, a pragmatic approach can be taken in furtherance of an ideological goal that is not necessarily capital 'P' Pragmatism.
I agree that DSA is an idealistic and not a pragmatic or practical organization, which is part of why I left. I didn't feel that they really wanted to transform America into Democratic Socialist society, and instead they were content to virtue signal and bicker between themselves about theory.
Maybe you just don't get the relationships or understand how philosophy maps to effectiveness, but to be clear, idealistic organizations can and have been highly effective at making political changes. The DSA/ Our revolution/ JD are great examples of this. I know you think you are making a distinction here, but like, you are not fully correct in this. The idea of taking idealistic stance is an effective way to get things done, I mean, its how the DSA got AOC elected in the first place. She used the uncompromising idealism as an argument that helped get her elected. It really works.
AOC could never have won her 2018 election as a pragmatist. Time will tell if this ends up being an effective strategy.
You are making the assumption that pragmatism is inherently better or more effective at capturing political power, which I'm disagreeing with. All of the major power shifts in the previous decade (say, 2015 forward) have resulted as a direct extension of embracing idealism. Specifically, we did see a shake up within the DNC with progressives in 2016, 18, and 20: progressives expressing a clear and distinct idealistic vision of something very differently than what we have/ had.
Likewise, you saw it on the right with Trump, and the rise of the alt-right, where voters flocked to candidates who were "uncompromising" in their views. They've built a huge political movement around that idealism, misplaced, distorted, scary, white nationalist idealism. But an idealism none-the-lessor.
For both parties, you can go even further back to the Tea party, and Obama's 2008 campaign for more examples of how a commitment to idealism gets you into power: this is a great example, because where the tea party stayed committed to their idealism, they continued to grow in terms of power and getting their agenda done (see project 2025); Obama abandoned the idealism of his campaign for what I would call the best modern example of political pragmatism, Obama's governing style for his first and second terms.
For Obamas pragmatism, he barely got heath-care done. For the Tea Parties idealism, they were effectively able to shift the entire political hegemony of the entire right-wing political apparatus of the country.
The data suggest to me that in an age of populism, idealism as both campaigning and governing political philosophy is far more effective. And if AOC is retreating from her former identity as idealist, this will cost her. She doesn't get power from being a moderate/ pragmatist. She gets power through idealism.
I'm not really arguing for or against DSA, but they were important for AOC's first run. Critical even. I am making an argument in favor of idealism; that pragmatism is not effective at gathering or wielding power in the currently political hegemony we find ourselves in.
You are making the assumption that pragmatism is inherently better or more effective at capturing political power
That's not exactly what I said, I said pragmatism is a methodology that can be used to achieve a goal. There's no reason why you couldn't take a pragmatic approach to achieving an idealistic goal. It's simply a matter of finding strategies that get you nearer to your goal and disregarding strategies that get you further from your goal. Several years ago, DSA was able to have a lot of success by putting forward an idealistic vision. Yes, I agree with that. However, since then the success of that strategy has waned significantly. Perhaps selling a kind of idealistic vision for America is still an effective strategy on the far right, but I think its effectiveness has declined dramatically among centrists and moderates, as well as progressives. Maybe it's still an effective strategy in AOC's district specifically (although, it seems she has become less idealistic and yet remains popular in her district, as far as I know), but that doesn't mean idealism is an effective strategy in America, generally.
Yes, I agree with that. However, since then the success of that strategy has waned significantly.
I just don't agree with this. The DNC has been waging a war against idealism and against progressives since it began in earnest in 2015. Idealism is the only thing that can save the Democrats right now, but core DNC, pro-business, neo-liberal Democrats don't get their power from it, so they opposed it with more energy than they've ever been able to muster against the actual "right" in this country. This is them having "flipped" AOC from that which got her into power to that which gets them into power.
Bernie was polling at +15 to Trump in 2016. That was the power of idealism. Take this clip of Adam Smith from his recent CNN interview (timestamp 3:00). Adam Smith, one of the most corporate of the corporate Democrats making the point that they basically had to rat-fuck the primary to stop Bernie Sanders from winning. This is the quiet part outloud. Idealism works on the left. It takes the entire institution of the DNC working against an idealistic candidate to stop them.
Idealsim works and I see little to no evidence that middle path, pragmatic approaches to electoral-ism are effective on the left or the right ( for the period starting very early at 2008, getting its footing strongly in 2016, at least before 2024). Pragmatism is a weak political strategy in this political climate and I see no evidence to the contrary.
What you see from AOC is her capitulating to the party structure and internal party politics. This started in 2021 when she capitulated on internal party reform with Pelosi post DJT. AOC's power has shifted from being primarily based in grass-roots organizing to being primarily based on the structure of the party. Any one who's power extends from party structure is always going to tilt towards strategies that keep that structure in place. If you have data showing that moderation is winning elections (left or right), happy to discuss.
If you have data showing that moderation is winning elections (left or right), happy to discuss.
Well, there's the fact that Clinton won the primaries in 2016, and that Biden won the primaries (over Bernie), and the general, in 2020. If Congress or state legislatures have become more progressive, I'm not aware of it.
Did you even click the link?
Adam Smith. On record basically stating that party insiders rigged the nomination against Bernie because he was clearly running away with it in 2020. 2016, we have a literal supreme court decision telling us that the DNC rigged the 2016 primary against Bernie, and that its ok for parties to rig their nominations. He was polling at +15 against DJT and the DNC chose "middle path" pragmatism to their loss. You put idealistic candidates out there and you win elections.
The burden of evidence is on you at this point.
He was polling at +15 against DJT and the DNC chose "middle path" pragmatism to their loss.
Yeah, they did lose, but then they did essentially the exact same thing in 2020 and won, so I remain unconvinced. I'll concede that idealistic candidates can win some elections, but I don't think it's nearly as many as you're claiming.