So I think a lot of folks don’t know the context this comic was written in and how misleading the message is.
This is an attack comic on a recently created 3rd party, the Forward party, created by Andrew Yang. There are several pillars to this party’s mission, such as UBI and Campaign finance reform, but the core of the party is the ranked choice vote.
If you aren’t familiar with ranked choice vote, Here is a great video explanation , but essentially it gives voters the ability to vote for multiple candidates and removing the entire “voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away” situation. If the forward party is successful to getting this passed in every part of our government, it would fully upend the two party system.
This comic is pointing at Andrew Yangs slogan in his 2020 run for president as well as for the forward party- “not left, not right, forward”. What he is trying to do is tap into the discontent found in a majority of Americans. Most voters would like to see choices beyond Dems and the GOP and these voters are all across the political spectrum.
Someone like my father, a former Republican who is disillusioned with the party but is still heavily free market, and myself who believes more in regulation and strong institutions both agree on the issue of RCV because we are in the same boat of feeling like we aren’t actually represented in our government.
I’d say this comic is a perfect example of “if you ignore the details of a philosophy and redefine it’s rhetoric, you can make it stand for anything you want”.
TL;Dr this comic is trying to convince you that the Forward party is the exact opposite of what it really is by ignoring any nuance.
Edit:Here is a video explaining the positions of the forward party. Keep a critical eye while watching it as I’m not trying to sell you on the party, but at least for you to be aware of it’s existence.
In Montana RCV has been voted down because it was called “California politics” funded by “deep state dark money” and would “just make voting more complicated for the average voter”. Worked like a charm here
I think most voters would like to see this work on a state level before they throw their federal votes away. Get rid of gerrymandering in one state and they would probably get a lot of momentum.
Oh 100%. This is why I had respect for the party for not running anyone for president.
I see a lot of folks being critical of the movement due to controversial associations (the Bushes etc.), and while I don’t personally like what these people have done, I recognize passing RCV will mean making strange bedfellows. It’s kinda like when you see AOC and Ted Cruz working together on banning lawmakers from becoming lobbyists.
After 2022, the majority of the funding comes from never Trumpers.
In 2022, the Forward Party merged with the Renew America Movement and the Serve America Movement.
Renew America Movement was a political group founded by former members of the Trump, George W. Bush, George H…W. Bush, and Reagan administrations. The Serve America Movement was a broad coalition party formed by former President George W. Bush staffers, including National Security Council director Sarah Lenti. Both groups pursued centrist political platforms similar to Forward.
In the 2022 election cycle, most of the Forward Party’s donations have come from its two merger partners, the Renew America Movement and Serve America Movement, which contributed almost $1 million combined.
The comic isn’t ignoring the details or redefining the Forward Party’s rhetoric at all. The message, which I agree with, is that the party’s platform doesn’t promise any fundamental change to the underlying system, but rather is intended to address glaring problems that represent a risk to the longevity of the system.
It’s a bit like the new deal, which was intended to take the steam out of the US labor movement (and succeeded). The goal, ultimately, is the short-term appeasement of those who have been disillusioned with the current system in order to preserve the greater status quo (capitalism).
The Forward Party isn’t advocating for anything close to a New Deal level appeasement policy after it abandoned UBI. It got taken over by conservatives and is a shambling corpse of something that was always a cover for the technocracy in the first place.
Knowing basically nothing about anything that’s relevant here, so pardon any ignorance, but it does sound to me like anything that moves the US towards a true multi-party system would be a pretty fundamental change?
To our democracy, sure, but not to our economic system. As long as our economic system is capitalist our democracy will always be beholden to the ultra rich, even if it is multi-party. Campaign finance reform is good, but nowhere near enough to eliminate the influence of capital on the political process.
I’m not so sure. I’m from a multi-party democracy, and while the ultra-rich (or, well, mega-rich I suppose - the US’s ultra-rich are at a different level I think) certainly have their interests catered to, I feel like on balance the scales are tipped to their benefit to a way smaller extent, largely thanks to the multi-party system.
What country? Virtually every liberal democracy is currently experiencing a far-right resurgence right now, with similar themes of austerity and lower taxes on the rich. Multiparty democracies, especially those with parliamentary systems, have greater immunity, but they’re all suffering from the same disease because they have the same foundational flaws.
In the EU, but my point is that the scale is way different. I’m in the Netherlands, and the far-right resurgence here is still being kept in check to some extent by the other parties. I shudder to think what would happen if they could do what they want just because they’re the largest, but they can’t.
The Netherlands has extra immunity beyond just the political system by way of a strong social safety net as well. Fascism thrives on poverty and resentment. But keep in mind, the Netherlands is practically the perfect example of social democracy and yet still the far-right is able to find a foothold to power. The Netherlands does a great job treating the symptoms of capitalism, but the foundations can still rot.
Andrew Yang is a billionaire which does suck, but if a billionaire is able to help us get RCV I’ll take it, but that’s just my 2 cents.
As for me I’d love if my comments were being funded by dark astroturfing money. I got credit card debt that I need to pay. Sadly I still need to go to work.
Edit:
Andrew Yang isn’t the one guy funding the party- just like any party they are pulling from many sources, I just assumed the comment was trying to get at the fact a billionaire is setting this up. I had a knee jerk reaction to that because I see purity tests as an unproductive way to judge a movement. There should be boundaries sure, but there should also be a degree of pragmatism in how to get things done.
No Labels is another one of these centrist parties with the exact same slogan. Serious, their slogan was “Not Left. Not Right. Forward.” This “Forward Party” is practically a carbon copy.
So I think a lot of folks don’t know the context this comic was written in and how misleading the message is.
This is an attack comic on a recently created 3rd party, the Forward party, created by Andrew Yang. There are several pillars to this party’s mission, such as UBI and Campaign finance reform, but the core of the party is the ranked choice vote.
If you aren’t familiar with ranked choice vote, Here is a great video explanation , but essentially it gives voters the ability to vote for multiple candidates and removing the entire “voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away” situation. If the forward party is successful to getting this passed in every part of our government, it would fully upend the two party system.
This comic is pointing at Andrew Yangs slogan in his 2020 run for president as well as for the forward party- “not left, not right, forward”. What he is trying to do is tap into the discontent found in a majority of Americans. Most voters would like to see choices beyond Dems and the GOP and these voters are all across the political spectrum.
Someone like my father, a former Republican who is disillusioned with the party but is still heavily free market, and myself who believes more in regulation and strong institutions both agree on the issue of RCV because we are in the same boat of feeling like we aren’t actually represented in our government.
I’d say this comic is a perfect example of “if you ignore the details of a philosophy and redefine it’s rhetoric, you can make it stand for anything you want”.
TL;Dr this comic is trying to convince you that the Forward party is the exact opposite of what it really is by ignoring any nuance.
Edit: Here is a video explaining the positions of the forward party. Keep a critical eye while watching it as I’m not trying to sell you on the party, but at least for you to be aware of it’s existence.
Is it that deep or is it just a reference you missed from a cartoon? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HqjhHVUzl8o
In Montana RCV has been voted down because it was called “California politics” funded by “deep state dark money” and would “just make voting more complicated for the average voter”. Worked like a charm here
I think most voters would like to see this work on a state level before they throw their federal votes away. Get rid of gerrymandering in one state and they would probably get a lot of momentum.
Oh 100%. This is why I had respect for the party for not running anyone for president.
I see a lot of folks being critical of the movement due to controversial associations (the Bushes etc.), and while I don’t personally like what these people have done, I recognize passing RCV will mean making strange bedfellows. It’s kinda like when you see AOC and Ted Cruz working together on banning lawmakers from becoming lobbyists.
After 2022, the majority of the funding comes from never Trumpers.
(source)
The comic isn’t ignoring the details or redefining the Forward Party’s rhetoric at all. The message, which I agree with, is that the party’s platform doesn’t promise any fundamental change to the underlying system, but rather is intended to address glaring problems that represent a risk to the longevity of the system.
It’s a bit like the new deal, which was intended to take the steam out of the US labor movement (and succeeded). The goal, ultimately, is the short-term appeasement of those who have been disillusioned with the current system in order to preserve the greater status quo (capitalism).
The Forward Party isn’t advocating for anything close to a New Deal level appeasement policy after it abandoned UBI. It got taken over by conservatives and is a shambling corpse of something that was always a cover for the technocracy in the first place.
I wasn’t aware they abandoned UBI, but I can’t really say I’m surprised.
Knowing basically nothing about anything that’s relevant here, so pardon any ignorance, but it does sound to me like anything that moves the US towards a true multi-party system would be a pretty fundamental change?
To our democracy, sure, but not to our economic system. As long as our economic system is capitalist our democracy will always be beholden to the ultra rich, even if it is multi-party. Campaign finance reform is good, but nowhere near enough to eliminate the influence of capital on the political process.
I’m not so sure. I’m from a multi-party democracy, and while the ultra-rich (or, well, mega-rich I suppose - the US’s ultra-rich are at a different level I think) certainly have their interests catered to, I feel like on balance the scales are tipped to their benefit to a way smaller extent, largely thanks to the multi-party system.
What country? Virtually every liberal democracy is currently experiencing a far-right resurgence right now, with similar themes of austerity and lower taxes on the rich. Multiparty democracies, especially those with parliamentary systems, have greater immunity, but they’re all suffering from the same disease because they have the same foundational flaws.
In the EU, but my point is that the scale is way different. I’m in the Netherlands, and the far-right resurgence here is still being kept in check to some extent by the other parties. I shudder to think what would happen if they could do what they want just because they’re the largest, but they can’t.
The Netherlands has extra immunity beyond just the political system by way of a strong social safety net as well. Fascism thrives on poverty and resentment. But keep in mind, the Netherlands is practically the perfect example of social democracy and yet still the far-right is able to find a foothold to power. The Netherlands does a great job treating the symptoms of capitalism, but the foundations can still rot.
It’s also got the quote on the podium from Biden, “Nothing will fundamentally change.”
Who is funding this?
My comment or the political party?
Andrew Yang is a billionaire which does suck, but if a billionaire is able to help us get RCV I’ll take it, but that’s just my 2 cents.
As for me I’d love if my comments were being funded by dark astroturfing money. I got credit card debt that I need to pay. Sadly I still need to go to work.
Edit:
Andrew Yang isn’t the one guy funding the party- just like any party they are pulling from many sources, I just assumed the comment was trying to get at the fact a billionaire is setting this up. I had a knee jerk reaction to that because I see purity tests as an unproductive way to judge a movement. There should be boundaries sure, but there should also be a degree of pragmatism in how to get things done.
As near as I can tell, he has a lot of money but he’s several orders of magnitude away from billionaire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang#Net_worth
I’m just worried about another No Labels situation.
A what now?
No Labels is another one of these centrist parties with the exact same slogan. Serious, their slogan was “Not Left. Not Right. Forward.” This “Forward Party” is practically a carbon copy.
Yikes