(Thread) Before the whole #ForceTheVote spectacle disappears in the usual ways that these things do in the Eternal Sunshine of the Very Online Left, something it might be worth taking a beat to think about:

So much of the discourse about this has treated it as a debate between insidery incrementalism and something more outsidery and confrontational--I've seen a few people describe it as a challenge to "electoralism"--but that stops making sense if you think about it for 5 seconds.
I know that some sort of spark to grassroots action was allegedly on the other end of the parliamentary Rube Goldberg machine:
"play hardball" in bargaining about the leadership vote --> get a floor vote that would have been defeated in a landslide making voters take M4A less seriously than ever as a real world possibility --> supposedly somehow get ammunition for this for primary challenges
...but about the most generous thing you can say about that is that it's *extremely* speculative.
I'd go further and say it would likely have the opposite result and make it harder to primary centrists since they could turn around and say,
"Hey, why is my opponent still trying to make this about M4A, which is never going to happen--look at that 3-to-1 defeat in a Dem house--instead of moving forward and talking about incremental health care reforms that might really happen like my [insert centrist bullshit here]?"
But whatever. That debate has happened and happened and happened. So let's just move on and notice this:
The suggested tactic itself was the most insidery kind of parliamentary wonkery.

So why did so many people code it as some sort of outsidery confrontational challenge to electoralism?

There's exactly one reason:
The guy leading the charge had a rhetorical affect--constantly screaming, calling everyone who disagreed a sellout and a corporate shill who was probably getting money from NATO--*felt* like it would go along with an outsidery confrontational challenge to electoralism.
If we're actually going to win M4A ever, never mind roll back the power of capital in any more fundamental ways, we all need to stop just rolling with gut-level impressions like that and actually get used to thinking about this stuff.

More from Politics

This is partly what makes it impossible to have a constructive conversation nowadays. The stubborn refusal to accept that opposition to Trumpism and GOP nationalism is about more than simply holding different beliefs about things in and of itself. 👇


It's fine for people to hold different beliefs. But that doesn't mean all beliefs deserve equal treatment or tolerance and it doesn't mean intolerance of some beliefs makes a person intolerant of every belief which they don't share.

So if I said I don't think Trumpism deserves to be tolerated because it's just a fresh 21st century coat of cheap paint on a failed, dangerous 20th century ideology (fascism) that doesn't mean I'm intolerant of all beliefs with which I disagree. You'd think this would be obvious.

Another important facet. People who support fascist movements tend to give what they think are valid reasons for supporting them. That doesn't mean anyone is obliged to tolerate fascism or accept their proffered excuse.


Say you joined a neighborhood group that sets up community gardens and does roadside beautification projects. All good, right? Say one day you're having a meeting and you notice the President and exec board of this group are saying some bizarre things about certain neighbors.

You May Also Like