surely this?

December 7, 2015 10:43 AM

Just let the Republicans win: Maybe things need to get really bad before America wakes up. Shane Ryan, Salon.

On the other hand, there is a good strategic reason not to vote for Hillary, and it boils down to this: If progressives fall in line, it shows the DNC and the party’s structural elite that they can have our loyalty for nothing. It sets a terrible precedent for the future. To steal a crass expression, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

This article has gotten some responses:
The December 6, 2015 Version of the Daily Idiotic Salon Article about the Election, Erik Loomis - "I’m not even going to bother refuting this Shane Ryan piece of moronic pablum. You all have fun with it."

Those Contradictions Won’t Heighten Themselves!, Scott Lemieux

As with the previous and no doubt future Salon articles urging people not to vote for Hillary Clinton, Shane Ryan’s article is so stupid its stupidity cannot be encapsulated by even a lengthy block quote. Erik highlighted the heighten-the-contradictions nonsense at the core of the article. I will just observe again that this kind of argument is much more likely to be advanced by affluent white guys living in major urban centers than the people upon whom the contradictions will be most heightened.

Shoter Salon: So What About The Dead People, Let's Concentrate On My Ego, Allsion Hantschel - "I thought we had this argument in 2000, and 2004, and 2008, and 2012, you solipsistic prick: " via Lemieux.

A More Serious Rebuttal Than Salon's Latest Hillary-Hating Dudebro Deserves - "Salon is now making a regular habit of publishing long, self-righteous essays in which Bernie Sanders fanboys explaining why it would be an awesome idea not to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election."

posted by the man of twists and turns (20 comments total)

Dear Everyone,

Don't tell me who to vote for.

Signed,

Me
posted by tommasz at 10:45 AM on December 7, 2015 [2 favorites]

yes let's give the republicans exactly what they want, that will show them
posted by murphy slaw at 10:47 AM on December 7, 2015 [10 favorites]

Jesus fucking christ, no. We've forgotten the Bush administration and their completely unnecessary wars and torture already?

"Salon is now making a regular habit of publishing long, self-righteous essays in which Bernie Sanders fanboys explaining why it would be an awesome idea not to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election."

I see this on Reddit too and it drives me nuts. You don't want to vote for Clinton in the primary - fine, that's your choice. But if you're urging that Democrats don't vote for her in the primary, you work for the Republican party.
posted by longdaysjourney at 10:47 AM on December 7, 2015 [5 favorites]

Did you just post a terrible article and then a bunch of links saying how terrible the article is?
posted by gwint at 10:48 AM on December 7, 2015 [2 favorites]

WATCH: Marco Rubio Vows to Roll Back LGBT Protections

Thanks, I would rather not.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:49 AM on December 7, 2015 [1 favorite]

I disagree with this piece for many reasons, but am most irked with the disingenuousness of listing the arguments opposed to the author's viewpoint without actually meeting them. Most importantly, how can this author ignore that George W DID run the country into the ground? This is a rather recent historic example of the fact that letting Rs do profound damage to the U.S. will not in fact facilitate a leftist takeover.
posted by bearwife at 10:49 AM on December 7, 2015 [4 favorites]

Just let the Republicans win: Maybe things need to get really bad before America wakes up

How much worse can they get? Seriously. 20 people own more than bottom half of the population of the US. We're fucking done. It's a plutocracy now.
posted by Talez at 10:52 AM on December 7, 2015 [4 favorites]

Most importantly, how can this author ignore that George W DID run the country into the ground?

He's actually arguing on Twitter that Bush is the reason we got Obama.

Yes, let that sink in, like ichor.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:52 AM on December 7, 2015 [3 favorites]

Flagged as offensive.
posted by mpbx at 10:52 AM on December 7, 2015 [3 favorites]

What the fuck is wrong with this guy? Who do you think is going to be hit worst by the consequences of those conservative policies if we "let" the Republicans win because we didn't have a progressive-enough candidate in the main election? Vote for the best candidate in front of you, not the candidate you wish you had. If Clinton wins the primary, hell if I'm not voting for the best of a bad bunch rather than pissing my vote into the wind and ceding victory to whoever wins the GOP primary.
posted by sciatrix at 10:52 AM on December 7, 2015 [2 favorites]

If only it was possible to examine the past using some kind of wonderful time machine. We could learn about what happens when a country has a bad president. Maybe it ends up OK, but maybe not! Alas no such machine exists and ours is but to shitpost on Salon
posted by theodolite at 10:53 AM on December 7, 2015 [3 favorites]

Yeah, we "gave them what they wanted" for 8 years under Bush II, right?

The trouble with "letting them win" is that the true impact of full GOP control won't be felt for a few years, and if there's a swing back to the Dems following a term or two under GOP control, they get to point fingers at the next person and say "look, they sure are sucking right now! Don't you wish were were in charge to control this?" as if they weren't the ones who set up the next person to take the fall.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:53 AM on December 7, 2015

Yeah, I saw that article last night and rolled my eyes. Easy for you to say, asshole, it's not your literal life on the line. God, I'm sick of straight white dudes abstracting politics like this like the stakes are just political points. Those are not the stakes. The stakes are our actual lives. We have to play to win, we can't lose, and we can't opt out. Allison Hantschel is fighting the good fight by pointing that out.
posted by yasaman at 10:53 AM on December 7, 2015 [10 favorites]

>Maybe things need to get really bad before America wakes up.

Or maybe this has already happened without having the desired effect.

Also, needs more 'sheeple'.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 10:54 AM on December 7, 2015 [3 favorites]

We tried that, remember?
posted by littlejohnnyjewel at 10:56 AM on December 7, 2015

Seriously, though, the two word answer to this guy should be: Supreme Court.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:57 AM on December 7, 2015 [5 favorites]

I hate to say it, but I've often thought the same thing. I simply don't see any end to the homicidal lunacy of the right until Americans are faced with the reality of living under a reactionary, right-wing "Christian" caliphate.

Yeah, I know it would be hell on Earth, and it would probably end with nuclear war. But, I just can't see the American electorate waking up and seeing the light any way other way.

For the record, I definitely do not want to go down that path.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:57 AM on December 7, 2015

This is an easy argument to make when your basic rights are secure. It's much harder to even say this with a straight face when your rights (to make your own medical decisions, to coverage for health care that could otherwise bankrupt you or put you out on the street, to be protected rather than put in danger from law enforcement, to live and work free from discrimination) depend on a single Supreme Court vote.

I would be much more interested in an article that fleshes out Elon James White's "earn this damn vote or lose" argument, focusing on the power of black voters.
posted by sallybrown at 10:57 AM on December 7, 2015 [4 favorites]

A couple of thoughts.

1. Why do writers so frequently focus on the gender of male Bernie Sanders supporters, vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton? It often seems like a sneaky way to imply something unsavory about their rejection of her candidacy without being obliged to demonstrate that it's unprincipled or discriminatory thinking.

2. It occurs to me that Shane Ryan's argumentation rests on the assumption that people need to suffer even more before they will, like, 'do something about it,' which fails spectacularly to even acknowledge that the powerful are actively oppressing everyone else; it's not like Americans aren't demanding better treatment and better lives (e.g., the Fight for 15, Black Lives Matter, and more), it's that the levers of control are increasingly accessible only to the most wealthy, and wealth distribution is outrageously imbalanced and wildly unequal. In other words, Ryan greatly over-estimates the ability of some national outrage yet-to-come to create change, and doesn't seem to see the powerful forces already standing in its way. It's like a verbose way of saying "well, we could totally transform the state, we just don't feel like it right now," which strikes me as fantastical thinking.
posted by clockzero at 10:58 AM on December 7, 2015 [6 favorites]

This argument in a nutshell: progress is hard, and right now it's really really hard and the other side has guns and calls us names, so let's just this one time let them win and do whatever they want because then all of their followers will finally be convinced of how bad they are and start listening to us even though we're not always very good at delivering our message to them.

Also, there will be no real world ramifications and there will definitely not be another huge war.
posted by vverse23 at 11:00 AM on December 7, 2015 [1 favorite]