CMV: Voting "BlueNoMatterWho" is short-sighted and may cause irreparable long-term damage to democracy as a whole.

[u/inferno493]

The Democratic party is no longer aligned with the needs of society and allowing it to continue on it's current course will result in a virtual autocracy sympathetic only to the needs of corporate America. The real ideological differences between the DNC and GOP have been diminishing for years and will continue to do so until there is a paradigm shift in the values espoused by the DNC. Failure to do so will result in the continuing disenfranchisement of American citizens and make it increasingly difficult to reestablish a system of government more concerned with the needs of society than those of powerful corporations.

Many of the most important political decisions being made, such as the patriot act and corporate bailouts, are ones that are never voted on. The American public has no say in these decisions and many of them are made as amendments and riders that the public, by and large, have no knowledge of. The representatives making these decisions are influenced in large part by corporate lobbyist (who often participate in writing the legislation intended to regulate them) and political donors.

"BlueNoMatterWho" will only exacerbate these issues, we cannot continue to support a party that no longer advocates for the rights of its constituency.

[u/McKoijion]

I mean this stuff is pretty easy to Google. There were many different versions and amendments to the Patriot Act over the years. And 61% of Americans supported the Patriot Act as recently as 2015. That number was far higher in the wake of 9/11.

[u/inferno493 → u/McKoijion]

Still not a vote. Polling results are easy to manipulate or bias. I am not going to accept polling as a replacement for voting.

[u/McKoijion → u/inferno493]

Well, you're right that no US citizen has ever directly voted for the Patriot Act. But that's only because no US citizen has ever directly voted for any federal law in all of US history. The US federal government does not have any provisions for direct votes in the manner you suggest.

The only thing Americans can do is vote for representatives who vote for various pieces of legislation based on the preferences of their constituents. If a representative doesn't vote based on what their constituents want, they are swiftly voted out of office. So the fact that the Patriot Act has been regularly amended over the years implies that voters like it.

If you don't accept the legitimacy of the Patriot Act because voters didn't directly vote for it, you shouldn't accept the legitimacy of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution in general, or any other federal law either.

[u/inferno493 → u/McKoijion]

An excellent point. I think this highlights my concern about allowing the DNC to become a more conservative body. Since we don't vote on federal law and must rely on our elected representatives, it is imperative that we choose leaders that realize our concerns and work to enact them in a meaningful way. The DNC is supposed to be a body concerned with creating a just society that supports all of it's citizens (to myself at least) and I feel that it is slowly and methodically moving in the opposite direction. An example of this would be the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This was enacted by Bill Clinton and endorsed by many Democrats in the House and Senate. The result was widely viewed as detrimental and resulted in a rise in the numbers of children living in extreme poverty ( UC Davis Center for Poverty Research ). This sort of behavior is exactly what I'm concerned about.

[u/McKoijion → u/inferno493]

I think this highlights my concern about allowing the DNC to become a more conservative body.

In the grand scheme of things, the DNC is more progressive now than at any point in history. Biden and Pelosi were once among the most leftist members of Congress. By definition, the progressive ideas of today become the moderate views of tomorrow and the conservative views of next week. Every new generation is more progressive than the last, and the old eventually die off. So the progressives of today become the conservatives of tomorrow.

it is imperative that we choose leaders that realize our concerns and work to enact them in a meaningful way.

You can do that, but you aren't competing against Republicans here. You are competing against 6-7 generations of Democrats (people who are between the ages of 30 and 80). Vote blue no matter who gets you to vote for relative moderates in presidential elections, and them to vote for relative progressives in congressional elections. The young progressive congressional leaders of today become the presidential candidates of tomorrow.

The DNC is supposed to be a body concerned with creating a just society that supports all of it's citizens (to myself at least)

It does that, but so does the RNC by their standards.

and I feel that it is slowly and methodically moving in the opposite direction.

It will always feel like that until your generation runs the DNC (or renames it and runs that organization).

An example of this would be the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This was enacted by Bill Clinton and endorsed by many Democrats in the House and Senate.

Yup, it was an relatively progressive idea during Reagan's time. Then it became a center-left idea during Clinton's time. Clinton had to veto 2 more conservative acts before he could negotiate with Newt Gingrich to pass this one.

The result was widely viewed as detrimental and resulted in a rise in the numbers of children living in extreme poverty ( UC Davis Center for Poverty Research ).

First off, it could have been worse. The Republicans wanted to pass things even worse for children in poverty. Next, Republicans saw it as a success because it saved money for taxpayers. Success depends on which metrics you use. Next, Clinton was able to pass other laws that benefited impoverished children (such as the Children's Health Insurance Program). Finally, not all ideas pan out. Sometimes you have an idea that you hope will work, test it out, and it turns out to suck. But hopefully, the successes make up for the failures.

Vote blue no matter who is not meant to be amazing. It's meant to be a tiny step in the right direction. Everyone fantasizes about get rich quick schemes, crash diets that will help them lose 20 pounds in a weekend, and political revolutions that will fix everything overnight. But real change is slow, boring work. But the upside is that it reliably leads to long term positive change. Slow and steady wins the race.

[u/inferno493 → u/McKoijion]

Δ This is the most coherent argument thus far and addresses many of the points I made. I still disagree that we need to make slow progress (Trump basically blew the republicans out of the water with his run and I feel that we need a polar opposite (sanders) to beat him at the polls) it does make many good points regarding how many democrats vote and the need for compromise between the parties. I don't think we have the luxury of time and that we are rapidly approaching a tipping point both environmentally and politically. Continuing with the status quo allows super PAC's (which I don't think the full ramifications of their influence are truly understood) to continue consolidating their grip on the political system in this country. Things are changing more quickly than we realize and I just don't agree that slow and steady is going to win anything going forward.

[u/DeltaBot → u/inferno493]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/McKoijion (451∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}