Don’t get me wrong, that is despicable. But I stand by what I said: I would rather someone with an extremely fucked up past be in that office if they will enact progressive legislation that will reduce harm in the present/future.
I am very skeptical given his past. But 1) can he do significantly more harm as senator than Collins? I doubt it. 2) are his stated policy goals of taxes on the wealthy, single payer health care, opposing war in Iran, abolishing ICE, etc. good? Yes. It is good to have someone in that office who will vote for those things (IF he actually will). Those things would be good for marginalized groups and bad for the fascists. That is all I care about as far as electoralism goes.
The opposition from the left is a moral one based on the sketchy shit about him. He’s running for senate. He can serve on committees and write bills. That’s the extent of it. What are folks worried he’d actually do?
Opposition from the right is that he’ll vote for the progressive things he says he will.
Left is concerned about who he is (purity testing), the right is concerned about what he’d do (because it’d be bad for them).
Not with regard to electoralism. Electoralism is a game with a very particular purpose for leftists, in my view, and holding to ideological purity/morals will make us lose.
When it comes to actually organizing, someone like Platner would obviously not be a good idea to include. Not without some serious vetting. He could have genuinely changed, but I wouldn’t take that risk in an organization.
Don’t get me wrong, that is despicable. But I stand by what I said: I would rather someone with an extremely fucked up past be in that office if they will enact progressive legislation that will reduce harm in the present/future.
I am very skeptical given his past. But 1) can he do significantly more harm as senator than Collins? I doubt it. 2) are his stated policy goals of taxes on the wealthy, single payer health care, opposing war in Iran, abolishing ICE, etc. good? Yes. It is good to have someone in that office who will vote for those things (IF he actually will). Those things would be good for marginalized groups and bad for the fascists. That is all I care about as far as electoralism goes.
The worst case scenario is he’s exactly as bad as his opponents openly claim they will be
The opposition from the left is a moral one based on the sketchy shit about him. He’s running for senate. He can serve on committees and write bills. That’s the extent of it. What are folks worried he’d actually do?
Opposition from the right is that he’ll vote for the progressive things he says he will.
Left is concerned about who he is (purity testing), the right is concerned about what he’d do (because it’d be bad for them).
But comrade, don’t you care at all about moral integrity?
Not with regard to electoralism. Electoralism is a game with a very particular purpose for leftists, in my view, and holding to ideological purity/morals will make us lose.
When it comes to actually organizing, someone like Platner would obviously not be a good idea to include. Not without some serious vetting. He could have genuinely changed, but I wouldn’t take that risk in an organization.