On Trump, and the prospects of Dictatorship
December 2, 2023 3:49 PM Subscribe
WaPo editor Robert Kagan argues that we are dangerously close to seeing a Trump Dictatorship. Is it true, or is it alarmism? He lists markers, but the American public (and mefites) will need to decide for themselves.
Some legal scholars have wondered on similar issues. There are no minimum sentencing requirements for Trump's legal indictments (the ones that don't just involve money and business), and no former president entitled to Secret Service protection has ever been jailed. Only one presidential candidate has ever run for office from jail, but no one seriously thought Eugene Debs had a prayer of winning; the same is not true of Trump. However, he's just as likely to try to use the trial as a campaign opportunity, given his lawyers preference for cameras in the courtroom
What are the fail-safes for an out-of-control president whose party is unwilling to rein him in? It's certainly something to think about as we head into this next election year.
Some legal scholars have wondered on similar issues. There are no minimum sentencing requirements for Trump's legal indictments (the ones that don't just involve money and business), and no former president entitled to Secret Service protection has ever been jailed. Only one presidential candidate has ever run for office from jail, but no one seriously thought Eugene Debs had a prayer of winning; the same is not true of Trump. However, he's just as likely to try to use the trial as a campaign opportunity, given his lawyers preference for cameras in the courtroom
What are the fail-safes for an out-of-control president whose party is unwilling to rein him in? It's certainly something to think about as we head into this next election year.
>Is it true, or is it alarmism? He lists markers, but the American public (and mefites) will need to decide for themselves.
Is it really necessary to frame things this way, even at this late date? He said "find me some votes", he refused to accept the peaceful transfer of power, he declared well in advance of the election that he wouldn't accept the results if he lost. Everybody knows what he is and what he'll do and there's no point playing rhetorical games about it. The American public doesn't need to "decide for itself"; you don't take a poll to determine whether you're trapped in a burning building, you either are or you aren't.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 4:06 PM on December 2, 2023 [73 favorites]
Is it really necessary to frame things this way, even at this late date? He said "find me some votes", he refused to accept the peaceful transfer of power, he declared well in advance of the election that he wouldn't accept the results if he lost. Everybody knows what he is and what he'll do and there's no point playing rhetorical games about it. The American public doesn't need to "decide for itself"; you don't take a poll to determine whether you're trapped in a burning building, you either are or you aren't.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 4:06 PM on December 2, 2023 [73 favorites]
> What confuses me is the unwillingness of the US press to say anything good about Biden.
I can only assume it's some combination of "sober, even-handed" editorship, terrified of looking like lefties, and the desperate need the press has for a 50/50 coin-flip horse-race to "report" on.
posted by Rat Spatula at 4:15 PM on December 2, 2023 [18 favorites]
I can only assume it's some combination of "sober, even-handed" editorship, terrified of looking like lefties, and the desperate need the press has for a 50/50 coin-flip horse-race to "report" on.
posted by Rat Spatula at 4:15 PM on December 2, 2023 [18 favorites]
I think the question is much less “Is Trump a fascist?” and much more “Will the Conservatives ally with fascists?” (Historically, the answer has been “yes”) and “Will enough voters cross that line to make the transition palatable?” (answer “we don’t know). Also, “if push comes to shove, what will the Armed Forced do?” (answer: “no idea, but I hope the Tuberville shitshow makes them think long and hard about following a Republican lead.”)
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:19 PM on December 2, 2023 [22 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:19 PM on December 2, 2023 [22 favorites]
Just like a neo-con, no admissions of wrongdoing, no apologies, no "this is what I did to try to save my party with the people in my phone" just "mistakes were made."
posted by Selena777 at 4:19 PM on December 2, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 4:19 PM on December 2, 2023 [13 favorites]
One thing that I remembered today, that keeps on getting lost in the panic of the 2024 election, is just how wildly mediocre and ineffective Trump was as the commander in chief. From the moment he took office, the most harmful parts of his presidency were initiated by people who had ideas more extreme, but also not really aligned platform-wise, than Trump's vision. Trump had no vision. He was entirely about the grift from the moment he announced his presidency. He never intended to be president, and when he got the gig he was really trash at the job. His term was filled with unstable dumbshits who constantly vied for his attention so they could convince Trump of some stupid idea before another dumbshit could counter with another stupid idea.
There is absolutely the possibility, right now, of Trump being back in the White House. But if he gets there, I highly doubt things would go according to whatever plan he has, present or future, because plans are never part of his grift.
God I hope I don't end up eating these words.
posted by Philipschall at 4:22 PM on December 2, 2023 [26 favorites]
There is absolutely the possibility, right now, of Trump being back in the White House. But if he gets there, I highly doubt things would go according to whatever plan he has, present or future, because plans are never part of his grift.
God I hope I don't end up eating these words.
posted by Philipschall at 4:22 PM on December 2, 2023 [26 favorites]
Yes, we are certainly deeply at risk of a significant fascist moment and yes, the US electoral and judicial systems don't really have a defense against cynical, bad-faith actors. No system can withstand bad-faith actors using it and contorting it for their own gain.
Beyond voting, it is up to all of us to take up an antifascist practice of some kind. It takes many forms, it is doable by people having all types of skills (and not having all types of skills), and it means organizing: strikes, boycotts, protests, direct action and civil disobedience, getting together with neighbors, supporting social movements and pushing them to be bolder. In short, fighting back.
Think about how coups work: they need to establish a status quo and prevent widespread resistance from the population. Don't let them have it.
posted by Grimp0teuthis at 4:29 PM on December 2, 2023 [26 favorites]
Beyond voting, it is up to all of us to take up an antifascist practice of some kind. It takes many forms, it is doable by people having all types of skills (and not having all types of skills), and it means organizing: strikes, boycotts, protests, direct action and civil disobedience, getting together with neighbors, supporting social movements and pushing them to be bolder. In short, fighting back.
Think about how coups work: they need to establish a status quo and prevent widespread resistance from the population. Don't let them have it.
posted by Grimp0teuthis at 4:29 PM on December 2, 2023 [26 favorites]
But if he gets there, I highly doubt things would go according to whatever plan he has, present or future, because plans were never even part of his grift.
Trump never expected to win. So he didn't have a plan. When he did win, he inherited the standard republican suite of political appointees: how many memoires and tell-alls have we seen from people claiming they signed on with him to "limit the damage"? And the federal bureaucracy, for the most part, was able to resist him. He didn't do nearly as much damage as he could have, because there were people in place, and judges in the courts, and a large resistance movement, opposing him. And the voters, let us not forget the voters.
Now he has a plan. He is backed by an affirmatively authoritarian crew that his rise to power has enabled. They are actively recruiting: and the people they want are not skilled policy experts, but loyalists who do not believe in an apolitical bureaucracy, who do not believe in a multi-ethnic democracy, who have seeded the federal judiciary with unqualified believers. Congress is full of people who either agree with him, or are too afraid to disagree. And the Supreme Court is just about ready to throw away the administrative state.
We already know what he plans to do: he will fire most of the senior civil service (and staff them with loyalists), he will set the Justice Department on his political enemies, and he will invoke the Insurrection Act on day one. And that's just the stuff they're willing to admit to in public.
It's not Trump's plan we need to be worried about: it's everyone around him.
posted by suelac at 4:32 PM on December 2, 2023 [93 favorites]
Trump never expected to win. So he didn't have a plan. When he did win, he inherited the standard republican suite of political appointees: how many memoires and tell-alls have we seen from people claiming they signed on with him to "limit the damage"? And the federal bureaucracy, for the most part, was able to resist him. He didn't do nearly as much damage as he could have, because there were people in place, and judges in the courts, and a large resistance movement, opposing him. And the voters, let us not forget the voters.
Now he has a plan. He is backed by an affirmatively authoritarian crew that his rise to power has enabled. They are actively recruiting: and the people they want are not skilled policy experts, but loyalists who do not believe in an apolitical bureaucracy, who do not believe in a multi-ethnic democracy, who have seeded the federal judiciary with unqualified believers. Congress is full of people who either agree with him, or are too afraid to disagree. And the Supreme Court is just about ready to throw away the administrative state.
We already know what he plans to do: he will fire most of the senior civil service (and staff them with loyalists), he will set the Justice Department on his political enemies, and he will invoke the Insurrection Act on day one. And that's just the stuff they're willing to admit to in public.
It's not Trump's plan we need to be worried about: it's everyone around him.
posted by suelac at 4:32 PM on December 2, 2023 [93 favorites]
I don't really think Trump will be our Sulla. He isn't even a Marius. If anything, he's a Cataline. But his failed attempt will set the stage for the next one.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 4:38 PM on December 2, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 4:38 PM on December 2, 2023 [8 favorites]
From the moment he took office, the most harmful parts of his presidency were initiated by people who had ideas more extreme, but also not really aligned platform-wise, than Trump's vision.
He's literally hiring 50,000 more of those. The top down, super-hierarchic nature of fascism will make maintaining alignment easy.
posted by butterstick at 4:46 PM on December 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
He's literally hiring 50,000 more of those. The top down, super-hierarchic nature of fascism will make maintaining alignment easy.
posted by butterstick at 4:46 PM on December 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
He's literally hiring 50,000 more of those. The top down, super-hierarchic nature of fascism will make maintaining alignment easy.
I think a potential saving grace is that, while all fascist governments are lousy with grifters, they usually wait until they are in control to really start with the grift. Trump, and everyone around him, is already grifting very very hard, and that’s starving unglamorous down-ticket races. Their greed might undo them.
However, the US, assuming it clears this hurdle, needs to take brisk action to fix some of these problems before the next crisis, and I am not certain the Republicans will be on board with that, since it will mean a couple decades out of power.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:03 PM on December 2, 2023 [9 favorites]
I think a potential saving grace is that, while all fascist governments are lousy with grifters, they usually wait until they are in control to really start with the grift. Trump, and everyone around him, is already grifting very very hard, and that’s starving unglamorous down-ticket races. Their greed might undo them.
However, the US, assuming it clears this hurdle, needs to take brisk action to fix some of these problems before the next crisis, and I am not certain the Republicans will be on board with that, since it will mean a couple decades out of power.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:03 PM on December 2, 2023 [9 favorites]
Yeah, we have a deeper problem than a disfunctional government. We have a disfunctional society undergoing political mitosis. You can't just fix that with some brisk action, it takes generations.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 5:07 PM on December 2, 2023 [34 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 5:07 PM on December 2, 2023 [34 favorites]
I don't really think Trump will be our Sulla. He isn't even a Marius. If anything, he's a Cataline. But his failed attempt will set the stage for the next one.Great, now I'm thinking of the Roman Empire again.
posted by ckoerner at 5:08 PM on December 2, 2023 [69 favorites]
I’m not sure whether to take the 100-some Republicans who voted against their party to expel Santos as a good sign or that the100-some Republicans who voted against obvious criminality in cynical favor of their own party as a bad sign.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:09 PM on December 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:09 PM on December 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
I fully expect Donald Trump to choose Henry Kissinger as his running mate.
Cataline fits but Clodius Pulcher fits better.
posted by clavdivs at 5:10 PM on December 2, 2023 [8 favorites]
Cataline fits but Clodius Pulcher fits better.
posted by clavdivs at 5:10 PM on December 2, 2023 [8 favorites]
timing!
posted by clavdivs at 5:11 PM on December 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 5:11 PM on December 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
Trump’s Georgia election trial could stretch into 2025, says prosecutor
posted by kirkaracha at 5:14 PM on December 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
The Atlanta-area prosecutor leading the criminal racketeering case against former president Donald Trump and 14 allies alleging they broke the law when they sought to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss said Tuesday that she anticipated the trial to conclude by early 2025, with proceedings probably underway during the final stretch of the 2024 presidential election.I fear the fix is in.
In an interview at The Washington Post Live’s Global Women’s Summit, Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) said the anticipated trial over alleged election interference by Trump and his allies could be ongoing on Election Day 2024 and possibly still underway on Inauguration Day.
“I believe in that case there will be a trial. I believe the trial will take many months. And I don’t expect that we will conclude until the winter or the very early part of 2025,” Willis said.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:14 PM on December 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
I decided to start taking the possibility of a Trump dictatorship seriously when, in my estimation, the likelihood of a violent coup hit 10%. That was in the summer of 2020.
Fortunately that did not come to pass. But the danger is higher than 10% now.
posted by ryanrs at 5:37 PM on December 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
Fortunately that did not come to pass. But the danger is higher than 10% now.
posted by ryanrs at 5:37 PM on December 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
The fact that a man like Trump could run for president, that a man like Trump could be elected president, that a man like Trump could get away with what he did before, during, and now after being president, and that we are talking about him doing it all over AGAIN, speaks loudly about the very fucked up nature of this country, and the seeming fact that all our laws and the constitution could not stop this from happening once and now maybe twice. And don’t forget, journalism has contributed to these failures by its inability to speak truth to power. The man tried to overthrow an entire election by force because of his innate narcissism, a quality that others have now seen as their gateway to power. 91 indictments? The court system here has been fucked over. The house is on fire now. And running around looking for a seltzer bottle to put it out is never a solution. The Republican Party needs to be gutted. The Democratic Party needs those guts so maybe they could stand up and actually do something instead of wave their hands and say what things Biden has done. It’s time they say what the Republicans have REALLY done and what they REALLY plan to do.
posted by njohnson23 at 5:52 PM on December 2, 2023 [36 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 5:52 PM on December 2, 2023 [36 favorites]
Donald Trump is not exactly the problem, if he was, he would've actively and quietly replaced generals and head of police forces starting immediately January 20, 2017. Donnie wants the best house and the biggest airplane, extra points for gold paint. He and his clownish sycophant entourage could not even get a presidential order right, for months. It didn't occur to them that they needed to break the system until sometime in the last year.
It's the deeply evil bastards that slowly realized they could get close and steal power by fawning on him that are increasingly dangerous. Incredibly dangerous. Evil scary dangerous.
posted by sammyo at 5:57 PM on December 2, 2023 [12 favorites]
It's the deeply evil bastards that slowly realized they could get close and steal power by fawning on him that are increasingly dangerous. Incredibly dangerous. Evil scary dangerous.
posted by sammyo at 5:57 PM on December 2, 2023 [12 favorites]
It really does come down to the generals in the end, same as in any other unstable limited democracy. If he loses and attempts a coup, it’s a challenge to the generals; if he wins and forces a purge, it’s a challenge to the generals, if the Supreme Court mandates an outcome that he doesn’t respect, it’s a challenge to the generals. Their oaths are to the constitution I believe; and there hasn’t been a proper test of the loyalty of American generals since the 1860s, nobody alive can really say what might happen.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 6:04 PM on December 2, 2023 [25 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 6:04 PM on December 2, 2023 [25 favorites]
it no longer matters who actually wins the 2024 election. this much is decided. if trump doesn't win, in fact, he will declare himself the winner regardless, and millions will back him. the questions before us are what can be done, what will they do, and what will we do?
posted by glonous keming at 6:27 PM on December 2, 2023 [19 favorites]
posted by glonous keming at 6:27 PM on December 2, 2023 [19 favorites]
Is it really necessary to frame things this way, even at this late date?
Well, I figured for a Metafilter post it was. I’m pretty much on Team Trump Wants A Dictatorship, I just am not sure if he’ll succeed at it or not yet.
posted by corb at 6:32 PM on December 2, 2023 [13 favorites]
Well, I figured for a Metafilter post it was. I’m pretty much on Team Trump Wants A Dictatorship, I just am not sure if he’ll succeed at it or not yet.
posted by corb at 6:32 PM on December 2, 2023 [13 favorites]
Here are a few things I've been thinking about making into FPPs (and may yet), but in case I don't get to it:
Mad Poll Disease is making Democrats misread voter opinion, Opinion piece, Michael Podhorzer, Guardian:
Some Bright Thoughts on Black Friday
One Year Out from Election 2024
And yet:
We just learned how damning the evidence involving Scott Perry is.
The legal peril of the Georgia co-conspirators will make at least some powerful Republicans think twice, and may put some of them in jail.
And:
Kansas.
Wisconsin.
Virginia.
Ohio.
Not to mention Georgia, and replacing the Republican Senate majority with a Democratic Senate majority.
We shouldn’t be confident, just determined - and for me, keeping all these victories and all these changes in both turnout and winning parties in the past five years is a huge help in keeping me determined and active.
Thanks for posting this, corb. I hope we achieve decisive victories for the Democrats in 2024, and long prison sentences for every public servant who has violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.
posted by kristi at 7:07 PM on December 2, 2023 [56 favorites]
Mad Poll Disease is making Democrats misread voter opinion, Opinion piece, Michael Podhorzer, Guardian:
Pollsters want voters to tell them who they will vote for next November; voters want to tell pollsters how unsatisfied they are now with the direction of the country and their own lives.and several recent columns from Jay Kuo at The Status Kuo:
...
But when it comes time to cast a ballot, voters understand the stakes. ... ever since Trump’s shocking win in 2016, many Americans who thought elections didn’t matter realized that they very much do. Most Americans reject everything Trump and Maga stand for – taking away our freedoms, filling the government with incompetent lackeys, and ruling with hate and fear. An anti-Maga majority was born, and it has turned out to vote in record numbers again and again. This has been a predictable weather pattern since 2018, but most pollsters and pundits fail to account for it.
Remember how 2022 was supposed to be a Red Wave, but it never materialized? ... Where voters understood the anti-Maga stakes, they turned out. This allowed Democrats to keep the Senate. When Democrats lost the House, it was by a much narrower margin than pundits expected.
...
Polls can mislead us into making unforced errors. We hear a lot about how risky it is to run an 81-year-old candidate with bad poll numbers. What about how risky it would be to replace someone who has beaten Trump before, and who has already been defined by both left and right, with someone who hasn’t?
Some Bright Thoughts on Black Friday
Ignore the polls and look at actual election resultsWe know how much abortion rights have gotten out the Dem vote in the past five years, but it's really helpful to be reminded JUST HOW MUCH - clearly laid out in Abortion Rights Will Wedge the GOP Brutally in 2024
...
The midterm elections, the special elections and the general elections over the past two years have been stellar for Democrats, even in deeply red states. And there are two reasons for that: abortion and MAGA extremism.
[summarizing: These are wedge issues for the GOP, and instead of figuring out how to soften them, they're doubling down.]
One Year Out from Election 2024
So why don’t I think Donald Trump will win in 2024? Here are some big reasons.Trump's candidacy is terrifying. Trump's popularity in the polls is terrifying. The utter lawlessness of so many powerful Republicans is terrifying.
Trump didn’t win in 2020. ...
Trump looks weaker in the key battlegrounds. ...
Trump likely will be running as a convicted criminal. ...
The economy isn’t collapsing. ...
Special elections show a clear, favorable pattern. ...
Democrats are motivated. ...
Republicans are fracturing. ...
We shouldn’t be confident, just determined
And yet:
We just learned how damning the evidence involving Scott Perry is.
The legal peril of the Georgia co-conspirators will make at least some powerful Republicans think twice, and may put some of them in jail.
And:
Kansas.
Wisconsin.
Virginia.
Ohio.
Not to mention Georgia, and replacing the Republican Senate majority with a Democratic Senate majority.
We shouldn’t be confident, just determined - and for me, keeping all these victories and all these changes in both turnout and winning parties in the past five years is a huge help in keeping me determined and active.
Thanks for posting this, corb. I hope we achieve decisive victories for the Democrats in 2024, and long prison sentences for every public servant who has violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.
posted by kristi at 7:07 PM on December 2, 2023 [56 favorites]
I suppose what I'm lacking right now is any clear sense of what to do besides remind everyone around me that my and my partner's relationship might be illegal in two years if they don't get out the vote.
I've been donating to the Biden campaign when I'm really despairing, or charities focused on LGBT or reproductive issues.
posted by constraint at 7:13 PM on December 2, 2023 [12 favorites]
I've been donating to the Biden campaign when I'm really despairing, or charities focused on LGBT or reproductive issues.
posted by constraint at 7:13 PM on December 2, 2023 [12 favorites]
constraint, those all sound like really good actions. The other thing I try to do is donate to voting rights and get-out-the-vote organizations, whether it's Fair Fight or League of Women's Voters or organizations working on voting for Native Americans or whatever - or even the ACLU.
posted by kristi at 7:19 PM on December 2, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by kristi at 7:19 PM on December 2, 2023 [8 favorites]
Their oaths are to the constitution I believe; and there hasn’t been a proper test of the loyalty of American generals since the 1860s, nobody alive can really say what might happen.
I suspect some people alive today, including generals and admirals and their peers and the journalists and academics who study them, might have some idea as to what many generals and admirals would do. For those interested in understanding how military folks see the the role of civilian control of the military in the context of politics, How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything by Rosa Brooks is worth a read. Certainly the military attracts its weirdos and loonies who are sometimes very good at military stuff—like Michael Flynn—but think about where we might be if Mark Milley and Jim Mattis hadn't been in the Trump White House. (In a previous generation, Colin Powell had a reputation in the Army as a politically savvy ticket-puncher, while Barry McCaffrey's legendary competence at everything gave him a Steve-Jobs-like Reality Distortion Field.)
I think the Rome parallels are helpful thinking tools, given the context of a conservative formerly agrarian militaristic patriarchal imperial superpower with massive inequality in a trade-based system of economic tribute. Look at what roles the military played with the worst emperors.
posted by vitia at 7:31 PM on December 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
I suspect some people alive today, including generals and admirals and their peers and the journalists and academics who study them, might have some idea as to what many generals and admirals would do. For those interested in understanding how military folks see the the role of civilian control of the military in the context of politics, How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything by Rosa Brooks is worth a read. Certainly the military attracts its weirdos and loonies who are sometimes very good at military stuff—like Michael Flynn—but think about where we might be if Mark Milley and Jim Mattis hadn't been in the Trump White House. (In a previous generation, Colin Powell had a reputation in the Army as a politically savvy ticket-puncher, while Barry McCaffrey's legendary competence at everything gave him a Steve-Jobs-like Reality Distortion Field.)
I think the Rome parallels are helpful thinking tools, given the context of a conservative formerly agrarian militaristic patriarchal imperial superpower with massive inequality in a trade-based system of economic tribute. Look at what roles the military played with the worst emperors.
posted by vitia at 7:31 PM on December 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
journalism has contributed to these failures by its inability to speak truth to power
Private media gives Trump and fellow Fascists free airtime, even now. They are able to report the truth, but they choose not to, even now, knowing the catastrophic consequences to come if another Republic presidency happens.
I don't know where we will go from a post-Republic Party country, but in some ways, the First Amendment may turn out to be as much of an involuntary suicide pact as the Second Amendment has proven to be.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:37 PM on December 2, 2023 [12 favorites]
Private media gives Trump and fellow Fascists free airtime, even now. They are able to report the truth, but they choose not to, even now, knowing the catastrophic consequences to come if another Republic presidency happens.
I don't know where we will go from a post-Republic Party country, but in some ways, the First Amendment may turn out to be as much of an involuntary suicide pact as the Second Amendment has proven to be.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:37 PM on December 2, 2023 [12 favorites]
There are no minimum sentencing requirements for Trump's legal indictments
So, this framing is obviously due to the writer of the linked Politico article being too goddamned lazy to look up the federal sentencing guidelines for the federal felonies he's been charged with, and as I'm just a bit superstitious about all this and also, unlike the Politico writer, not being paid to do it, I won't, either, but while there may not be a "mandatory minimum" of the sort that applies to certain drug-related crimes, there will absolutely be, after the verdict, an objectively computable range of sentence which the judge will have to make specific legal findings to go below (or above).
posted by praemunire at 7:49 PM on December 2, 2023 [16 favorites]
So, this framing is obviously due to the writer of the linked Politico article being too goddamned lazy to look up the federal sentencing guidelines for the federal felonies he's been charged with, and as I'm just a bit superstitious about all this and also, unlike the Politico writer, not being paid to do it, I won't, either, but while there may not be a "mandatory minimum" of the sort that applies to certain drug-related crimes, there will absolutely be, after the verdict, an objectively computable range of sentence which the judge will have to make specific legal findings to go below (or above).
posted by praemunire at 7:49 PM on December 2, 2023 [16 favorites]
it no longer matters who actually wins the 2024 election. this much is decided. if trump doesn't win, in fact, he will declare himself the winner regardless, and millions will back him. the questions before us are what can be done, what will they do, and what will we do?
For what it's worth, we could say much the same about 2020, and as a nation we're still plodding along.
As a nation, America has always existed in deep shadow. Much of it demands privilege and dominion based not on law or morals or lofty founders' ideals, but resting solely upon Because I Said So and Because It's Always Been That Way. That is the foundation of modern conservatism and of Trumpism -- restoring that unwarranted privilege and firmly removing rights, dignity and humanity from all who disagree.
George Wallace was blocking an Alabama schoolhouse in the name of that foundation just sixty years ago. What I suspect we're headed for is not a full, outright fascist regime, but an escalation of our return to that era. In many ways, we've never left it. Outright defiance at local and state levels against federal law and court decisions, prejudice and hostility to anyone failing to bend the knee to the Good Old Social Order, scattered outbreaks of violence against soft and/or prominent targets? All hallmarks of American conservatism, and they're not going away. We're already at the point where red states like Florida and North Carolina and Texas are lurching socially hard-rightward and daring anyone to stop them.
Not so much internment camps and violent coups coming, I believe, as despite the fucked-up-edness of the Electoral College and despite Biden's age/gaffes/stance on Gaza, I can't imagine a single person who'd look at Trump and say "that's my guy in 2024" who wasn't already in the tank for him in 2020 and 2016. But for an awful lot of people, it'll be like the Green Book days of old, where anyone who looks or thinks or acts in certain ways will want to mind their step, make travel plans carefully, look for fellow travelers in rougher areas and never, ever take their safety or dignity for granted.
Which is, after all, America's natural state.
posted by delfin at 7:55 PM on December 2, 2023 [14 favorites]
For what it's worth, we could say much the same about 2020, and as a nation we're still plodding along.
As a nation, America has always existed in deep shadow. Much of it demands privilege and dominion based not on law or morals or lofty founders' ideals, but resting solely upon Because I Said So and Because It's Always Been That Way. That is the foundation of modern conservatism and of Trumpism -- restoring that unwarranted privilege and firmly removing rights, dignity and humanity from all who disagree.
George Wallace was blocking an Alabama schoolhouse in the name of that foundation just sixty years ago. What I suspect we're headed for is not a full, outright fascist regime, but an escalation of our return to that era. In many ways, we've never left it. Outright defiance at local and state levels against federal law and court decisions, prejudice and hostility to anyone failing to bend the knee to the Good Old Social Order, scattered outbreaks of violence against soft and/or prominent targets? All hallmarks of American conservatism, and they're not going away. We're already at the point where red states like Florida and North Carolina and Texas are lurching socially hard-rightward and daring anyone to stop them.
Not so much internment camps and violent coups coming, I believe, as despite the fucked-up-edness of the Electoral College and despite Biden's age/gaffes/stance on Gaza, I can't imagine a single person who'd look at Trump and say "that's my guy in 2024" who wasn't already in the tank for him in 2020 and 2016. But for an awful lot of people, it'll be like the Green Book days of old, where anyone who looks or thinks or acts in certain ways will want to mind their step, make travel plans carefully, look for fellow travelers in rougher areas and never, ever take their safety or dignity for granted.
Which is, after all, America's natural state.
posted by delfin at 7:55 PM on December 2, 2023 [14 favorites]
If we’re talking historical precedent or averages, the US has had internment camps and (local, in some cases numerous enough to impact state government) violent coups in its history, with some folks having to worry a lot more about their safety than just Green Book level stuff, bad as that was. Full on genocide is a not-insignificant component of the country’s history, for example, with some dregs of genocidal practices still remaining today eg. in legal frameworks around application of family services to, or adoption from, Native American communities; or still-current issues around tribal sovereignty or land rights - or lack thereof, jurisdictional tangles that decrease the likelihood of applying justice to violent crimes committed by settlers against Native Americans on reserves, etc.
posted by eviemath at 8:28 PM on December 2, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 8:28 PM on December 2, 2023 [13 favorites]
kristi: Thank you for the outstanding comment. Those are all excellent links.
Both my intellect and my intuition have been telling me that the poll- and media-driven narratives about the 2024 election -- like so many of the narratives I see in left-leaning spaces nowadays -- are deeply poisoned by irrational doomerism.
But it's extremely helpful to have so many strong counterarguments collected together in one place.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:49 PM on December 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
Both my intellect and my intuition have been telling me that the poll- and media-driven narratives about the 2024 election -- like so many of the narratives I see in left-leaning spaces nowadays -- are deeply poisoned by irrational doomerism.
But it's extremely helpful to have so many strong counterarguments collected together in one place.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:49 PM on December 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
Is it a trend to call them the Republic Party rather than the Republican Party? I've seen it twice, now.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 9:16 PM on December 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 9:16 PM on December 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
Only one presidential candidate has ever run for office from jail, but no one seriously thought Eugene Debs had a prayer of winning
You forgotPoland Lyndon Larouche. Larouche ran for president in 1992, his fifth attempt, while serving a 15-year sentence for mail fraud and tax evasion (fun fact, televangelist Jim Bakker was his cellmate). Larouche garnered 26334 votes, 0.02% of the popular vote.
Larouche's 1992 campaign is noteworthy in a history-rhymes way because he was, through his running mate Rev. James Bevel, running on an alleged coverup of a conspiracy in which a banker in Omaha and high level US politicians were engaged in a satanic child prostitution ring. (And because it's always projection, Larouche's VP candidate Bevel was later convicted of sexually assaulting his daughter while making these accusations.)
Also, Leonard Peltier was the presidential candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party in 2004 while serving two consecutive life sentences after being convicted of killing two FBI agents; he too won 0.02% of the popular vote. The Peace and Freedom Party went on to nominate Ralph Nader in 2008 and Rosanne Barr in 2012.
Anyway, this is to say that we shouldn't compare Trump to Eugene Debs, because Debs was the real deal and his sedition conviction was kinda bullshit. Trump deserves to be compared to a brainworm crank like Lyndon Larouche.
posted by peeedro at 9:32 PM on December 2, 2023 [25 favorites]
You forgot
Larouche's 1992 campaign is noteworthy in a history-rhymes way because he was, through his running mate Rev. James Bevel, running on an alleged coverup of a conspiracy in which a banker in Omaha and high level US politicians were engaged in a satanic child prostitution ring. (And because it's always projection, Larouche's VP candidate Bevel was later convicted of sexually assaulting his daughter while making these accusations.)
Also, Leonard Peltier was the presidential candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party in 2004 while serving two consecutive life sentences after being convicted of killing two FBI agents; he too won 0.02% of the popular vote. The Peace and Freedom Party went on to nominate Ralph Nader in 2008 and Rosanne Barr in 2012.
Anyway, this is to say that we shouldn't compare Trump to Eugene Debs, because Debs was the real deal and his sedition conviction was kinda bullshit. Trump deserves to be compared to a brainworm crank like Lyndon Larouche.
posted by peeedro at 9:32 PM on December 2, 2023 [25 favorites]
Well, look at this thread. People hear this asshole's name and instantly snap to attention: arias of angst and ass-ache pour from our furiously texting fingers, as if to coin the ultimate bon mot would as good as stake our grotesque tangerine Dracula once and for all. And yet: where is the poetry, the blood and thunder, for poor old Joe Biden? Where is the passion for Biden's many great accomplishments, his forging of peace between Israel and Hamas, his inroads into desperately needed dialogue between Russia and Ukraine, his heroic efforts to demolish US student debt, his ongoing support for the Child Tax Credit, an absolute layup that...ohhhhhhh, wait. Oh, I see.
Trump should not be in position to have a serious claim for the presidency, because Biden should have fucking had this. He didn't. He just didn't. He has to do better than this or he will lose, just like Hillary Clinton was out of touch and lost. He has to do better.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:13 PM on December 2, 2023 [21 favorites]
Trump should not be in position to have a serious claim for the presidency, because Biden should have fucking had this. He didn't. He just didn't. He has to do better than this or he will lose, just like Hillary Clinton was out of touch and lost. He has to do better.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:13 PM on December 2, 2023 [21 favorites]
Is it a trend to call them the Republic Party rather than the Republican Party? I've seen it twice, now.
I dunno, but after years of "Democrat Party" I'm kinda okay with it.
posted by non canadian guy at 10:16 PM on December 2, 2023 [9 favorites]
I dunno, but after years of "Democrat Party" I'm kinda okay with it.
posted by non canadian guy at 10:16 PM on December 2, 2023 [9 favorites]
kittens for breakfast, I believe Biden and his administration have - despite definite failures - accomplished a staggering amount. I certainly don't see it in the mainstream media, though. If it weren't for the hard work of people like historian Heather Cox Richardson carefully compiling a record of the things he and his people have done, I would never know.
Let me know if you'd like links; it's late, but I could pull some together tomorrow.
posted by kristi at 10:29 PM on December 2, 2023 [17 favorites]
Let me know if you'd like links; it's late, but I could pull some together tomorrow.
posted by kristi at 10:29 PM on December 2, 2023 [17 favorites]
> Heather Cox Richardson
I was following her until tonight's post rapidly dismantled the faith I had in her analysis.
posted by constraint at 11:36 PM on December 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
I was following her until tonight's post rapidly dismantled the faith I had in her analysis.
posted by constraint at 11:36 PM on December 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
That's not something to fault them for, they have other things going on.
We've all got other things going on - that doesn't mean we can just shrug off our responsibility as citizens and the need to be informed voters. People who can't be bothered to pay attention to the threat posed by politicians like Trump are a huge part of the problem.
posted by Paul Slade at 12:07 AM on December 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
We've all got other things going on - that doesn't mean we can just shrug off our responsibility as citizens and the need to be informed voters. People who can't be bothered to pay attention to the threat posed by politicians like Trump are a huge part of the problem.
posted by Paul Slade at 12:07 AM on December 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
I am taking some comfort from author and attorney Teri Kanefield's latest post, called "Trump Claimed Absolute Immunity From Criminal Prosecution (and the court said ‘nope’)." She highlights a variety of comments from Judge Chutkan’s order denying Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges in the DOJ / January 6 Election Subversion case based on claims of immunity. They include:
* Criminal conduct is not part of the necessary functions performed by public officials.
* By definition, the President’s duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ does not grant special latitude to violate them.
* The Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support that contention. No court—or any other branch of government—has ever accepted it. And this court will not so hold. Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong “get-out-of-jail-free” pass.
* Perhaps no one understood the compelling public interest in the rule of law better than our first former President, George Washington. His decision to voluntarily leave office after two terms marked an extraordinary divergence from nearly every world leader who had preceded him, ushering in the sacred American tradition of peacefully transitioning Presidential power—a tradition that stood unbroken until January 6, 2021.
It seems utterly clear that if voted into office again, That Fucking Guy will dismantle as many remaining democratic institutions as possible (as we know, gerrymandering has destroyed actual democracy in several states, and never mind about the Supreme Court, yadda yadda). As hippybear observed above, TFG's plans are no secret. As kristi noted, "We shouldn’t be confident, just determined."
All we can do is fight as best we can to the extent we can. In my case, I'm donating money to Democrats Abroad because a surprising and somewhat scary number of votes from outside the US helped put Biden in office. Scary only because it worries me that expats can make such a difference.
hippybear's story was so moving. How painful that your mother did not believe she should support rights for queer people. How amazing, hippybear, that your latest conversation seems to be bearing fruit. That also brings me some comfort. Thank you for not giving up. And thanks for the post, corb!
posted by Bella Donna at 3:14 AM on December 3, 2023 [18 favorites]
* Criminal conduct is not part of the necessary functions performed by public officials.
* By definition, the President’s duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ does not grant special latitude to violate them.
* The Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support that contention. No court—or any other branch of government—has ever accepted it. And this court will not so hold. Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong “get-out-of-jail-free” pass.
* Perhaps no one understood the compelling public interest in the rule of law better than our first former President, George Washington. His decision to voluntarily leave office after two terms marked an extraordinary divergence from nearly every world leader who had preceded him, ushering in the sacred American tradition of peacefully transitioning Presidential power—a tradition that stood unbroken until January 6, 2021.
It seems utterly clear that if voted into office again, That Fucking Guy will dismantle as many remaining democratic institutions as possible (as we know, gerrymandering has destroyed actual democracy in several states, and never mind about the Supreme Court, yadda yadda). As hippybear observed above, TFG's plans are no secret. As kristi noted, "We shouldn’t be confident, just determined."
All we can do is fight as best we can to the extent we can. In my case, I'm donating money to Democrats Abroad because a surprising and somewhat scary number of votes from outside the US helped put Biden in office. Scary only because it worries me that expats can make such a difference.
hippybear's story was so moving. How painful that your mother did not believe she should support rights for queer people. How amazing, hippybear, that your latest conversation seems to be bearing fruit. That also brings me some comfort. Thank you for not giving up. And thanks for the post, corb!
posted by Bella Donna at 3:14 AM on December 3, 2023 [18 favorites]
"If it bleeds, it leads."
And it's a huge problem. Biden has done a truly staggering amount, that will only sink in over the course of the next decade (like 'Obamacare' has done): but that's not sexy, won't sell papers, won't make people turn and look. Now Trump, that guys is a multi-car wreck on the Interstate. That guy is an Airborne Toxic Event - is there anything better to move papers? No, I think not - it's the point J.Stewart made decades (!) ago when he took apart Tucker and Begala.
Trump pulled off his coup (with Russian/Social Media help) in 2016 and wasn't able to do anything with it, because he's a grifter shit-head whose fore-sight went to, "I'll charge Foreign Govs a shit-ton to use my hotel! Hah hah hah! I'm so clever!" There is always the chance that he could win a second term, yes. But until the media stops using the fear of his return to office and take him at face value and put him in a different context - he's a grifter who exploited a social/political moment to accidentally win the office - he will always exist as a boogie-man.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:18 AM on December 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
And it's a huge problem. Biden has done a truly staggering amount, that will only sink in over the course of the next decade (like 'Obamacare' has done): but that's not sexy, won't sell papers, won't make people turn and look. Now Trump, that guys is a multi-car wreck on the Interstate. That guy is an Airborne Toxic Event - is there anything better to move papers? No, I think not - it's the point J.Stewart made decades (!) ago when he took apart Tucker and Begala.
Trump pulled off his coup (with Russian/Social Media help) in 2016 and wasn't able to do anything with it, because he's a grifter shit-head whose fore-sight went to, "I'll charge Foreign Govs a shit-ton to use my hotel! Hah hah hah! I'm so clever!" There is always the chance that he could win a second term, yes. But until the media stops using the fear of his return to office and take him at face value and put him in a different context - he's a grifter who exploited a social/political moment to accidentally win the office - he will always exist as a boogie-man.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:18 AM on December 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
Yes. He is a useful grifter at best. And yes, that shadow/empire federalist institute Norquist swamp-beast is out there… but would it have a chance without a Trump as stalking horse?
posted by From Bklyn at 5:34 AM on December 3, 2023
posted by From Bklyn at 5:34 AM on December 3, 2023
I appreciate the offer to educate me on all that Joe Biden has done; I know it's well intended; but can you see the problem? The very fact that you need someone to explain what a good president Joe Biden has been is, I'm sorry, a slight tip-off that Biden hasn't been that great a president. I sure didn't need anyone to explain to me that Trump was a bad president.
In Biden, what I'm seeing is a leader who is throwing fantastic amounts of money at foreign wars -- including a spectacularly dangerous proxy war with Russia, which could lead to a real-life nuclear exchange -- while doing very little to lift up impoverished Americans, whose real wages have declined dramatically since 2021. Biden trumpets the power of Child Tax Credit, which he inexplicably let expire...maybe he doesn't know he did that? After years of prodding, he took a half-hearted stab at reducing student debt, then punted responsibility for that to the Supreme Court, who obviously were never going to allow it. The Supreme Court did, predictably, overturn Roe v. Wade, which anyone could have seen coming at the end of 2020, but where the efforts to legislate the right to abortion on a federal level? Biden fumbled that, too. I can't help but wonder what a more effective leader from the left might have done differently.
Donald Trump is obviously not that leader, and I don't think Biden's largest fear should be people switching their vote. His largest fear should be democratic voters not voting, just like in 2016. But the good thing is, that's fixable! He just has to start showing up.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:38 AM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
In Biden, what I'm seeing is a leader who is throwing fantastic amounts of money at foreign wars -- including a spectacularly dangerous proxy war with Russia, which could lead to a real-life nuclear exchange -- while doing very little to lift up impoverished Americans, whose real wages have declined dramatically since 2021. Biden trumpets the power of Child Tax Credit, which he inexplicably let expire...maybe he doesn't know he did that? After years of prodding, he took a half-hearted stab at reducing student debt, then punted responsibility for that to the Supreme Court, who obviously were never going to allow it. The Supreme Court did, predictably, overturn Roe v. Wade, which anyone could have seen coming at the end of 2020, but where the efforts to legislate the right to abortion on a federal level? Biden fumbled that, too. I can't help but wonder what a more effective leader from the left might have done differently.
Donald Trump is obviously not that leader, and I don't think Biden's largest fear should be people switching their vote. His largest fear should be democratic voters not voting, just like in 2016. But the good thing is, that's fixable! He just has to start showing up.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:38 AM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
He has to do better.
This has to extend to other parts of the Democratic party as well (I was about to say "Democratic party organization"--is it even an organization, really?).
There's a patchwork of state parties that varied a lot in success or failure in 2022 and 2023. Minnesota did pretty well. Michigan seems to be holding firm. I'm not as familiar, say, with North Carolina or Georgia, I'd like to think those are fighting and getting what they can in relatively adverse circumstances.
But California? There were winnable House seats in California in 2022. If Democrats had taken them, that could have helped prevent the tiny Republican House majority we're living under now. California Democratic leadership can't be allowed to take their big blue-state environment for granted.
And Florida--it was not that long ago that Florida was a legit swing state. Obama carried it twice! I get that the rot in the Republican party is extra-toxic there, even compared to other parts of the country, I get the gerrymandering, I get that it's a state with bedroom communities full of the cranky fascist old uncles you avoid at the holidays. But in 2022, when Democrats were outperforming the polls elsewhere around the country, Rubio and Desantis beat the poll averages by six to eight points in Florida statewide elections in favor of the Republicans. Sure, it's easy to point and laugh at Florida, but it has electoral votes, Senators and House seats, and the Democratic party leadership there needs to do their job. The big failures happened on their watch; Florida party leaders need to get their act together or get out of the way.
And then, sheesh, there's New York. We've all had a lot of fun kicking George Santos to the curb, but do not forget--a Democratic Party candidate for Congress lost to that guy! New York Democrats were supposed to vet and run a candidate, fund and support that candidate, and do opposition research, and act on it. It's political malpractice of the highest order that Democrats lost that race, and it's not even the only example in New York of leadership failure in the last cycle, just the "spiciest" one.
There are other state party orgs, and probably local ones, that could be singled out, too (I'm pretty sure I have a stinkeye for New Jersey party leadership...). It's a basic line in the job description. Are you winning elections? If not, why are you collecting a paycheck?
So yeah, I kind of agree, Team Biden needs to up their game. But there's blame to spread around, too.
posted by gimonca at 5:53 AM on December 3, 2023 [19 favorites]
This has to extend to other parts of the Democratic party as well (I was about to say "Democratic party organization"--is it even an organization, really?).
There's a patchwork of state parties that varied a lot in success or failure in 2022 and 2023. Minnesota did pretty well. Michigan seems to be holding firm. I'm not as familiar, say, with North Carolina or Georgia, I'd like to think those are fighting and getting what they can in relatively adverse circumstances.
But California? There were winnable House seats in California in 2022. If Democrats had taken them, that could have helped prevent the tiny Republican House majority we're living under now. California Democratic leadership can't be allowed to take their big blue-state environment for granted.
And Florida--it was not that long ago that Florida was a legit swing state. Obama carried it twice! I get that the rot in the Republican party is extra-toxic there, even compared to other parts of the country, I get the gerrymandering, I get that it's a state with bedroom communities full of the cranky fascist old uncles you avoid at the holidays. But in 2022, when Democrats were outperforming the polls elsewhere around the country, Rubio and Desantis beat the poll averages by six to eight points in Florida statewide elections in favor of the Republicans. Sure, it's easy to point and laugh at Florida, but it has electoral votes, Senators and House seats, and the Democratic party leadership there needs to do their job. The big failures happened on their watch; Florida party leaders need to get their act together or get out of the way.
And then, sheesh, there's New York. We've all had a lot of fun kicking George Santos to the curb, but do not forget--a Democratic Party candidate for Congress lost to that guy! New York Democrats were supposed to vet and run a candidate, fund and support that candidate, and do opposition research, and act on it. It's political malpractice of the highest order that Democrats lost that race, and it's not even the only example in New York of leadership failure in the last cycle, just the "spiciest" one.
There are other state party orgs, and probably local ones, that could be singled out, too (I'm pretty sure I have a stinkeye for New Jersey party leadership...). It's a basic line in the job description. Are you winning elections? If not, why are you collecting a paycheck?
So yeah, I kind of agree, Team Biden needs to up their game. But there's blame to spread around, too.
posted by gimonca at 5:53 AM on December 3, 2023 [19 favorites]
Biden has done a truly staggering amount, that will only sink in over the course of the next decade
Narrator: It wiill never sink in. Except to the extent Republicans steal the credit.
This cognitive dissonance is because Americans have a double-standard in their expectations of the two parties. D's suck because they promise us a pony and don't quite deliver, but R's are awesome if the worst they do is sell some of our stuff behind our backs for cigarettes.
posted by zaixfeep at 5:55 AM on December 3, 2023 [11 favorites]
Narrator: It wiill never sink in. Except to the extent Republicans steal the credit.
This cognitive dissonance is because Americans have a double-standard in their expectations of the two parties. D's suck because they promise us a pony and don't quite deliver, but R's are awesome if the worst they do is sell some of our stuff behind our backs for cigarettes.
posted by zaixfeep at 5:55 AM on December 3, 2023 [11 favorites]
We have a new type of rule now. Not one-man rule or rule of aristocracy or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision.-William S. Burroughs
They are representatives of abstract forces who have reached power through surrender of self. The iron-willed dictator is a thing of the past; there will be no more Stalins, no more Hitlers. The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident; inept, frightened pilots with controls of vast machines they cannot understand, calling in experts telling them which buttons to push.
posted by Room 101 at 6:12 AM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
think about where we might be if Mark Milley and Jim Mattis hadn't been in the Trump White House
So one of the things that I think about a lot, because I'm me, is where the military would fall on this if it came down to it, and I think a lot of it really comes down to questions like: is Mattis still alive and in fighting capacity at the time of a dictatorship? He's 73 now, at the time of the 'third term' stuff the article is predicting, he'd be 77. I can't think of another retired general who has the personal loyalty of troops, veterans, and commanders like Mattis.
And if not, how do the numerous Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans break across the country? They're aging, in their late thirties and forties now, and tending to be wildly divergent in terms of their life outcomes and disaffectation with America and American politics. A number of them are already getting dangerously atttracted by the Trumpian narrative that they've had a golden age stolen from them and he's going to bring it back, and while the loyalty to the Nation and Rules is *there*, sort of, there's much stronger loyalties to fellow soldiers and veterans. There's a number of leftist veterans, but we're wildly outnumbered by my count - though the ones that exist are hardliners, which may affect the calculus. I wouldn't put them past an assassination: but would it help or hurt? Is Trump the cause, or just a symbol, a hole into which the larger lurking fascism would just place a new person and continue moving on, now waving the bloody shirt? And that's leaving aside the issue of 'is a civil war really better, honestly'.
posted by corb at 6:28 AM on December 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
So one of the things that I think about a lot, because I'm me, is where the military would fall on this if it came down to it, and I think a lot of it really comes down to questions like: is Mattis still alive and in fighting capacity at the time of a dictatorship? He's 73 now, at the time of the 'third term' stuff the article is predicting, he'd be 77. I can't think of another retired general who has the personal loyalty of troops, veterans, and commanders like Mattis.
And if not, how do the numerous Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans break across the country? They're aging, in their late thirties and forties now, and tending to be wildly divergent in terms of their life outcomes and disaffectation with America and American politics. A number of them are already getting dangerously atttracted by the Trumpian narrative that they've had a golden age stolen from them and he's going to bring it back, and while the loyalty to the Nation and Rules is *there*, sort of, there's much stronger loyalties to fellow soldiers and veterans. There's a number of leftist veterans, but we're wildly outnumbered by my count - though the ones that exist are hardliners, which may affect the calculus. I wouldn't put them past an assassination: but would it help or hurt? Is Trump the cause, or just a symbol, a hole into which the larger lurking fascism would just place a new person and continue moving on, now waving the bloody shirt? And that's leaving aside the issue of 'is a civil war really better, honestly'.
posted by corb at 6:28 AM on December 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
Well, look at this thread. [...] And yet: where is the poetry, the blood and thunder, for poor old Joe Biden?
The audacity of people, commenting about Donald Trump in a post about Donald Trump.
Please don't drop in a conversation--especially with that condescending tone--and attempt to shame people for talking about what the post is about. It's rude.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:07 AM on December 3, 2023 [14 favorites]
The audacity of people, commenting about Donald Trump in a post about Donald Trump.
Please don't drop in a conversation--especially with that condescending tone--and attempt to shame people for talking about what the post is about. It's rude.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:07 AM on December 3, 2023 [14 favorites]
Biden trumpets the power of Child Tax Credit, which he inexplicably let expire...maybe he doesn't know he did that?
Vox.com -The success of the expanded child tax credit shows why anti-poverty programs should be unconditional.
SCOTUSblog - Supreme Court strikes down Biden student-loan forgiveness program
Center for Reproductive Rights.org - U.S. Senate Fails to Pass Abortion Rights Legislation
Biden is not God, or King, or a dictator. It's hard to take complaints about things Biden has "failed" on seriously when the complainer ignores the role of other branches of government and the states and state governments in blocking the Biden administration's goals. He can't just make things happen by Presenting harder.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:15 AM on December 3, 2023 [56 favorites]
Vox.com -The success of the expanded child tax credit shows why anti-poverty programs should be unconditional.
"The results were historic. Over the course of 2021, child poverty was cut nearly in half, and the long-running fear at the heart of the American welfare system — that unconditional aid would discourage work — never came to pass.took a half-hearted stab at reducing student debt, then punted responsibility for that to the Supreme Court
Then, to the dismay of advocates and recipients alike, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) blocked the Democratic Party’s effort to make the expansion permanent, fearing, among other familiar concerns like the cost, that recipients would just buy drugs (the data shows that recipients spent the money on food, clothes, utilities, rent, and education)."
SCOTUSblog - Supreme Court strikes down Biden student-loan forgiveness program
"But after federal courts in Missouri and Texas put the program on hold last year, the Biden administration came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in. [. . .] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled last year that Missouri has a right to sue because it created and controls the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, one of the country’s largest servicers and holders of student loans. If the debt-relief program goes into effect, the states contended, it could cost MOHELA as much as $44 million per year, which will in turn limit the company’s ability to contribute funds to support the state’s higher-education programs.where the efforts to legislate the right to abortion on a federal level? Biden fumbled that, too.
Center for Reproductive Rights.org - U.S. Senate Fails to Pass Abortion Rights Legislation
"The U.S. Senate once again failed to enshrine the right to abortion into federal law, falling short of the votes needed to advance the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) toward passage. This was the Senate’s second 2022 vote on the bill, which is supported by a majority of voters in the U.S and was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in September. As with the Senate’s last vote in February, WHPA again did not receive the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster."Emphases mine.
Biden is not God, or King, or a dictator. It's hard to take complaints about things Biden has "failed" on seriously when the complainer ignores the role of other branches of government and the states and state governments in blocking the Biden administration's goals. He can't just make things happen by Presenting harder.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:15 AM on December 3, 2023 [56 favorites]
Trump is dangerous. After 2016, I don't get how anyone can dismiss that danger. It wasn't like 2020 was just a walk in the park: millions voted for Trump. And dog knows what is going on in some states right now to suppress voters of color.
That said, I feel there is also a bit of cynical gaming going on in the Biden campaign. Biden/Harris can probably only win against Trump or someone equally fascist, like De Santis. Dial the fascism down a bit, and lots of swing voters will be tempted to vote for a Republican who is younger and better at reading the popular emotions.
So what we have right now is a lot of conservative/Republican people desperately trying to stop the Trump candidacy, with good right: they know that a good Republican candidate can win over Biden/Harris, and Trump isn't that. I feel Liz Cheney is honest in her intentions, though I never ever thought I would say that. Some other anti-Trump pundits come off as a bit disingenuous at this point in history.
posted by mumimor at 7:20 AM on December 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
That said, I feel there is also a bit of cynical gaming going on in the Biden campaign. Biden/Harris can probably only win against Trump or someone equally fascist, like De Santis. Dial the fascism down a bit, and lots of swing voters will be tempted to vote for a Republican who is younger and better at reading the popular emotions.
So what we have right now is a lot of conservative/Republican people desperately trying to stop the Trump candidacy, with good right: they know that a good Republican candidate can win over Biden/Harris, and Trump isn't that. I feel Liz Cheney is honest in her intentions, though I never ever thought I would say that. Some other anti-Trump pundits come off as a bit disingenuous at this point in history.
posted by mumimor at 7:20 AM on December 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
I've been thinking a lot lately about the Iowa caucus.
Iowa's governor endorsed Nikki Haley (the last time a Republican Iowa governor endorsed someone before the caucus, the candidate was Bob Dole), and previous Iowa caucus winners include (checks notes) Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee.
I don't put a lot of faith in polls, but, if it's effectively a two-person, or even a three-person race, Trump might not win as big as he thinks he's going to. He might not win at all.
If that happens, how do Trump and his supporters react, and how does the media, both mainstream and right-wing, choose to cover it?
posted by box at 7:21 AM on December 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
Iowa's governor endorsed Nikki Haley (the last time a Republican Iowa governor endorsed someone before the caucus, the candidate was Bob Dole), and previous Iowa caucus winners include (checks notes) Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee.
I don't put a lot of faith in polls, but, if it's effectively a two-person, or even a three-person race, Trump might not win as big as he thinks he's going to. He might not win at all.
If that happens, how do Trump and his supporters react, and how does the media, both mainstream and right-wing, choose to cover it?
posted by box at 7:21 AM on December 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
Biden is not God, or King, or a dictator. It's hard to take complaints about things Biden has "failed" on seriously when the complainer ignores the role of other branches of government and the states and state governments in blocking the Biden administration's goals. He can't just make things happen by Presenting harder.
Well, you've convinced me; obviously, the president is a powerless figurehead. What are we all so worried about, then?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:27 AM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
Well, you've convinced me; obviously, the president is a powerless figurehead. What are we all so worried about, then?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:27 AM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
This editorial made me angry, and not because I don't agree that Trump is this dangerous -- I do. I disagree with some of his hand-waving about our chances, but that's not even the problem. It's essentially a Trumpist editorial. Its tone is made for spreading despair. It's everything Trump could ask for, if he weren't currently experiencing dementia during his many trials.
The feelings it stirred up -- it reminds me of the Dark Day. In 1780, before people knew how to learn about these things, a combination of forest fires and heavy clouds basically plunged New England into darkness one day. People were frightened; they thought it was Judgment Day. Legislators who were in session wanted to go home and be with their families. But the presiding councilor said: "I am against adjournment. The day of judgment is either approaching, or it is not. If it is not, there is no cause for an adjournment; if it is, I choose to be found doing my duty. I wish therefore that candles may be brought."
Obviously, we can't just wait for everything to blow over. But we also can't wring our hands. I am going to continue to put in work where it can't be seen, and I am going to stop reading this kind of thing in the meantime. I wish therefore that candles may be brought.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:34 AM on December 3, 2023 [24 favorites]
The feelings it stirred up -- it reminds me of the Dark Day. In 1780, before people knew how to learn about these things, a combination of forest fires and heavy clouds basically plunged New England into darkness one day. People were frightened; they thought it was Judgment Day. Legislators who were in session wanted to go home and be with their families. But the presiding councilor said: "I am against adjournment. The day of judgment is either approaching, or it is not. If it is not, there is no cause for an adjournment; if it is, I choose to be found doing my duty. I wish therefore that candles may be brought."
Obviously, we can't just wait for everything to blow over. But we also can't wring our hands. I am going to continue to put in work where it can't be seen, and I am going to stop reading this kind of thing in the meantime. I wish therefore that candles may be brought.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:34 AM on December 3, 2023 [24 favorites]
s it a trend to call them the Republic Party rather than the Republican Party? I've seen it twice, now.
I'd go with "Republicanist". 'Cause they no longer stand for the ideals of a republic, only for "Republicanism".
posted by jackbishop at 7:39 AM on December 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'd go with "Republicanist". 'Cause they no longer stand for the ideals of a republic, only for "Republicanism".
posted by jackbishop at 7:39 AM on December 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
What are we all so worried about, then?
The president is never powerless if they are corrupt and lead a majority revolution in congress to dissolve government. They only need his signature, and his unwillingness to concede a defeat. Even Nikki Haley has a plan for it.
posted by Brian B. at 7:40 AM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
The president is never powerless if they are corrupt and lead a majority revolution in congress to dissolve government. They only need his signature, and his unwillingness to concede a defeat. Even Nikki Haley has a plan for it.
posted by Brian B. at 7:40 AM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
So, Trump has an infinite potential to do harm, but Biden is completely ineffectual because he's a good person. I'm not sure that I buy it, but someone will, I suppose. Good luck.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:59 AM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:59 AM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
If that happens, how do Trump and his supporters react, and how does the media, both mainstream and right-wing, choose to cover it?
Easy. Team Trump will scream about the caucus being rigged and influenced by outsiders and defying the will of the people and what the hell is a caucus, anyway? and Election Interference and Biased Media and RINO conspiracies and the FBI and corrupt judges and 49 other reasons why the setback is Everybody's Fault But Trump's, and the media will continue to treat Trump as the inevitable nominee.
As they should, to be honest. Because on a national level, in which Dems and Indies also get a say, the Trump Fatigue is much higher than in closed primaries where the Trump rump gets to throw its weight around. Trump is not doomed if he loses an early caucus state, any more than Biden was doomed by Bernie's relative success prior to Super Tuesday. Reaching a point in which the Trump base reflects on their leader and thinks "...maybe we SHOULD back a different horse?" would be a sea change of Biblical proportions, and we are not anywhere near there yet.
The other candidates are there in case Trump abruptly flees the country or suffers a massive health crisis.
posted by delfin at 9:21 AM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Easy. Team Trump will scream about the caucus being rigged and influenced by outsiders and defying the will of the people and what the hell is a caucus, anyway? and Election Interference and Biased Media and RINO conspiracies and the FBI and corrupt judges and 49 other reasons why the setback is Everybody's Fault But Trump's, and the media will continue to treat Trump as the inevitable nominee.
As they should, to be honest. Because on a national level, in which Dems and Indies also get a say, the Trump Fatigue is much higher than in closed primaries where the Trump rump gets to throw its weight around. Trump is not doomed if he loses an early caucus state, any more than Biden was doomed by Bernie's relative success prior to Super Tuesday. Reaching a point in which the Trump base reflects on their leader and thinks "...maybe we SHOULD back a different horse?" would be a sea change of Biblical proportions, and we are not anywhere near there yet.
The other candidates are there in case Trump abruptly flees the country or suffers a massive health crisis.
posted by delfin at 9:21 AM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
kittens for breakfast, you are (willfully?) misinterpreting not only a number of comments but also the workings of the US Government.
When it comes to establishing policy, the US President can not legislate by fiat. That's by design - eg, three branches of government. A president can't simply decide to, for example, cancel all student debt and, by virtue of the stroke of his/her pen, it is done.
The closest a president can come to doing so is, in fact, what Joe Biden did. His move was then challenged up to the Supreme Court, where it was defeated. See, again, 3 co-equal branches of government.
Note, though, that many members of the very same Supreme Court that decided that Joe had overstepped in trying to establish a very popular (and, in my opinion, highly just) policy were appointed by a president. Because that is a power that presidents actually do have - they can nominate Supreme Court justices. Even then, those nominees aren't automatically installed - they need the approval of the Senate.
Point being, the occupant of the White House has profound influence on all manner of things, even though s/he can not simply MAKE STUFF HAPPEN on a whim. Working within that framework, Joe Biden has accomplished a lot. Whereas Trump would, I think, generally work to do away with that very framework in order to enrich himself and re-establish policies from a time when justice and rights were less robust than they are now.
Executive orders are another matter. #45 unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Climate Accord. Someone can correct me, but I think those were done by executive order and weren't subject to review. I think it's noteworthy that those moves didn't actually create anything, they simply nullified a previous obligation.
Anyway, your assertion that either a president is all powerful and therefore Joe Biden has done a terrible job -OR- a president has no power and then who cares if Trump wins is a massive oversimplification. IF you are interested in such things, you really should educate yourself more on the topic. As it stands, your reasoning is, um, sub-optimal.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 9:59 AM on December 3, 2023 [34 favorites]
When it comes to establishing policy, the US President can not legislate by fiat. That's by design - eg, three branches of government. A president can't simply decide to, for example, cancel all student debt and, by virtue of the stroke of his/her pen, it is done.
The closest a president can come to doing so is, in fact, what Joe Biden did. His move was then challenged up to the Supreme Court, where it was defeated. See, again, 3 co-equal branches of government.
Note, though, that many members of the very same Supreme Court that decided that Joe had overstepped in trying to establish a very popular (and, in my opinion, highly just) policy were appointed by a president. Because that is a power that presidents actually do have - they can nominate Supreme Court justices. Even then, those nominees aren't automatically installed - they need the approval of the Senate.
Point being, the occupant of the White House has profound influence on all manner of things, even though s/he can not simply MAKE STUFF HAPPEN on a whim. Working within that framework, Joe Biden has accomplished a lot. Whereas Trump would, I think, generally work to do away with that very framework in order to enrich himself and re-establish policies from a time when justice and rights were less robust than they are now.
Executive orders are another matter. #45 unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Climate Accord. Someone can correct me, but I think those were done by executive order and weren't subject to review. I think it's noteworthy that those moves didn't actually create anything, they simply nullified a previous obligation.
Anyway, your assertion that either a president is all powerful and therefore Joe Biden has done a terrible job -OR- a president has no power and then who cares if Trump wins is a massive oversimplification. IF you are interested in such things, you really should educate yourself more on the topic. As it stands, your reasoning is, um, sub-optimal.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 9:59 AM on December 3, 2023 [34 favorites]
Sure, I'm a big dummy. Unfortunately for you, so is most of America, judging from the polling. What I'm saying is, you can argue that Trump has the power to destroy everything, but the only way Biden can do anything (except send us to war, I guess) is to get the parliamentarian to sign off on it on an alternate Tuesday in March, otherwise forget it, and you can feel good and superior about what you've done, and still end up watching in horror as Trump gets voted in. What I would ask you to do is ask yourself seriously whether you think the reason Biden is losing the polls is that everybody just has unrealistic expectations of him, or if possibly, people are unhappy with the results of three years of his leadership. Is it really just that the voters suck, or could there be more?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:21 AM on December 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:21 AM on December 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
My oft stated position is that Donald John Trump could vanish in a puff of smoke like a magician this very instant and it would not change the Realpolitik of the United States of America one iota. Tens of millions of Americans — many of them in offices of special trust and confidence like congressperson or general or judge or police officer — are dangerous zealots who mustn't be allowed to control the levers of power by any means necessary. Cf., The Undertow, Scenes from a Slow Civil War by Jeff Sharlet.
Look at this screenshot of a tweet from Ron Filipkowski posted on Mastodon by George Takei. The text reads, “Praying over Trump in IA: ‘The Gates of Hell will not prevail over him. I pray for protection over him & his family. All the weapons formed against him will not prosper. There is a great victory coming for this nation & the world because of the calling you've placed on this man.’”
As Kasparov put it on Twitter two years ago, “It’s not fight or leave, or war or peace. It’s war, and you fight or lose. And as much as you may not like fighting, you’re really not going to like losing.”
posted by ob1quixote at 10:26 AM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
Look at this screenshot of a tweet from Ron Filipkowski posted on Mastodon by George Takei. The text reads, “Praying over Trump in IA: ‘The Gates of Hell will not prevail over him. I pray for protection over him & his family. All the weapons formed against him will not prosper. There is a great victory coming for this nation & the world because of the calling you've placed on this man.’”
As Kasparov put it on Twitter two years ago, “It’s not fight or leave, or war or peace. It’s war, and you fight or lose. And as much as you may not like fighting, you’re really not going to like losing.”
posted by ob1quixote at 10:26 AM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
Is it really just that the voters suck, or could there be more?
Trump polls better than Biden, so the voters mostly suck. We seem to be debating about bland food when the alternative is to eat garbage or starve.
posted by Brian B. at 10:40 AM on December 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
Trump polls better than Biden, so the voters mostly suck. We seem to be debating about bland food when the alternative is to eat garbage or starve.
posted by Brian B. at 10:40 AM on December 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
Let's not forget that Trump didn't even create the movement he is currently at the head of. The Tea Party became a thing on the heals of the ineffectual response to the 2008 crisis, which saw the moral hazard of bailing out the banks as less important than the moral hazard of bailing out the people harmed by the crash. And its roots stretch back even farther than that. What Trump did was to jump out in front of that movement and tell them to follow him. But even when Trump is gone, the Politics of Resentment will still be with us.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 10:41 AM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 10:41 AM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
Point being, the occupant of the White House has profound influence on all manner of things, even though s/he can not simply MAKE STUFF HAPPEN on a whim.
Yet. Which is kind of what this thread is about.
Joe Biden is not a threat to our democratic republic system of government because he is very much a product of that system and embedded within that system. He is not alone in that; we expect that of those who are elected to public office. He is not an advocate of radical systemic change. If someone like Manchin or Sinema stands against his policy desires and goals, that is part of how the game is played, and he would rather accept half a loaf than push hard to try and change their minds and enable what _would_ be radical systemic change.
And he is not alone in that. 51 is not enough to eliminate the filibuster, and neither would be 52, or 53, or 54, because someone else from the Dem side would step up and express Serious Concerns about Discarding Precedent.
Radical change is designed to not be easy to push through in America. This is both good and bad, because there are many aspects of American life in which radical change has been and remains needed URGENTLY. And when the opposition party treats bipartisanship as the ultimate mortal sin and uses every trick in the book to thwart even everyday, uncontroversial, vital processes of government, pushing through radical change would require a movement and a partywide exercise of will that neither its leadership nor its rank-and-file are prepared to pursue.
The conservative model, in response, is to subvert the institutions of that system of government by every means possible. Your choice for Governor loses? The state legislature, tilted deep red by gerrymandering and demographics, simply tries to strip the Governor's office of any relevant powers. The Supreme Court makes a ruling? The state legislature simply ignores it. SCOTUS has openings? They are denied to Democratic Presidents and rammed through for Republicans according to "precedents" made up on the fly. Your POTUS commits crimes worthy of impeachment? Senators of his party simply refuse to even look at the evidence, and then support his efforts to overturn the next election. And that was _before_ the theorized dictatorial takeover in the OP.
As I said earlier, a good chunk of Americans don't want to win elections and control the system; they simply want to hold power, to take it away from those they despite, and to dictate what is allowed and accepted and what is not. Some want all restrictions on capital and business dealings done away with so that they can make as much money as they can by any means necessary. Some, like Speaker Johnson, want their interpretations of their religious beliefs to be mandated. Some are powered by pure hate, whether racial or class or gender or religion-based.. Many were brought up to think like that. Many others were programmed by fifty years of intensifying conservative media bombardment.
Trump is not a true believer; he is motivated by personal gain and petty vengeance, and is riding atop a machine that others built. Trump could not simply wave his hand and alter America because the courts, the houses of Congress, those in state offices, the military, the major institutions of America refused to accept that he could do so. That is a very good thing, but if those insittutions are repopulated en masse with others who WILL accept that, something that the likes of Biden would never attempt, it's a different story.
And that is precisely what Trump has telegraphed that he wants to do, for his own self-preservation and purposes of vengeance, and what those who support him have telegraphed that they'd be delighted to inherit once he goes.
posted by delfin at 10:54 AM on December 3, 2023 [30 favorites]
Yet. Which is kind of what this thread is about.
Joe Biden is not a threat to our democratic republic system of government because he is very much a product of that system and embedded within that system. He is not alone in that; we expect that of those who are elected to public office. He is not an advocate of radical systemic change. If someone like Manchin or Sinema stands against his policy desires and goals, that is part of how the game is played, and he would rather accept half a loaf than push hard to try and change their minds and enable what _would_ be radical systemic change.
And he is not alone in that. 51 is not enough to eliminate the filibuster, and neither would be 52, or 53, or 54, because someone else from the Dem side would step up and express Serious Concerns about Discarding Precedent.
Radical change is designed to not be easy to push through in America. This is both good and bad, because there are many aspects of American life in which radical change has been and remains needed URGENTLY. And when the opposition party treats bipartisanship as the ultimate mortal sin and uses every trick in the book to thwart even everyday, uncontroversial, vital processes of government, pushing through radical change would require a movement and a partywide exercise of will that neither its leadership nor its rank-and-file are prepared to pursue.
The conservative model, in response, is to subvert the institutions of that system of government by every means possible. Your choice for Governor loses? The state legislature, tilted deep red by gerrymandering and demographics, simply tries to strip the Governor's office of any relevant powers. The Supreme Court makes a ruling? The state legislature simply ignores it. SCOTUS has openings? They are denied to Democratic Presidents and rammed through for Republicans according to "precedents" made up on the fly. Your POTUS commits crimes worthy of impeachment? Senators of his party simply refuse to even look at the evidence, and then support his efforts to overturn the next election. And that was _before_ the theorized dictatorial takeover in the OP.
As I said earlier, a good chunk of Americans don't want to win elections and control the system; they simply want to hold power, to take it away from those they despite, and to dictate what is allowed and accepted and what is not. Some want all restrictions on capital and business dealings done away with so that they can make as much money as they can by any means necessary. Some, like Speaker Johnson, want their interpretations of their religious beliefs to be mandated. Some are powered by pure hate, whether racial or class or gender or religion-based.. Many were brought up to think like that. Many others were programmed by fifty years of intensifying conservative media bombardment.
Trump is not a true believer; he is motivated by personal gain and petty vengeance, and is riding atop a machine that others built. Trump could not simply wave his hand and alter America because the courts, the houses of Congress, those in state offices, the military, the major institutions of America refused to accept that he could do so. That is a very good thing, but if those insittutions are repopulated en masse with others who WILL accept that, something that the likes of Biden would never attempt, it's a different story.
And that is precisely what Trump has telegraphed that he wants to do, for his own self-preservation and purposes of vengeance, and what those who support him have telegraphed that they'd be delighted to inherit once he goes.
posted by delfin at 10:54 AM on December 3, 2023 [30 favorites]
I think the Democrats are playing the wrong game. The numbers for inflation and unemployment and growth are for wonks. Trump is appealing to lizard brain myths. His rallies, like Nazi rallies before them, appeal to people not as a matter of cold calculation of rights and interests, but deep in their bodies, rage and shame and fear and aggression. QAnon tells them there's a distillation of all evil out there, gives Trump supporters' lives drama in opposing it, makes them feel righteous by their very nature. Trump's obvious moral limitations don't matter. He speaks of "the American Dream", and to many he's still that genius businessman with a luxury lifestyle who gets all the hot girlfriends, and he's going to let all Americans (void if vermin) live like that too. Did he pay off a porn star? Who cares. I can remember when America's mantra (void for some demographics) was "sometimes you just have to break the rules", piped in from movies like Risky Business and Burger King commercials.
I saw part of an interview with the "QAnon shaman" and it was remarkable how disciplined he was in sticking to alternate reality talking points. Why would the Democrats fake January 6? Because it's giving them an excuse to prosecute and persecute Trump now. The press has failed to counter the narrative that some in this bubble hear that Trump's 91 indictments are politically motivated. And it's obvious that these alternate reality lies are being coordinated by sophisticated actors, Roger Stones and Mike Flynns and Putins and Silicon Valley libertarian dark enlightenment edgelords.
So we need less "Well, actually Biden has advanced some highly beneficial policies" and more mythic resonance. Photoshopping laser eyes onto Dark Brandon isn't going to cut it.
posted by Schmucko at 12:01 PM on December 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
I saw part of an interview with the "QAnon shaman" and it was remarkable how disciplined he was in sticking to alternate reality talking points. Why would the Democrats fake January 6? Because it's giving them an excuse to prosecute and persecute Trump now. The press has failed to counter the narrative that some in this bubble hear that Trump's 91 indictments are politically motivated. And it's obvious that these alternate reality lies are being coordinated by sophisticated actors, Roger Stones and Mike Flynns and Putins and Silicon Valley libertarian dark enlightenment edgelords.
So we need less "Well, actually Biden has advanced some highly beneficial policies" and more mythic resonance. Photoshopping laser eyes onto Dark Brandon isn't going to cut it.
posted by Schmucko at 12:01 PM on December 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
Trump is a grifter, a figurehead for Trumpism.
The GOP's weakness (shared with Democrats) is the amount of time they must spend worrying about reelections. Their fear of Trumpists paralyzes them. Trumpists' party is Trumpism. Trump has a keen sense of all grifters; he knows who to massage and when. Notice that he hasn't campaigned. He has rallies; he lets the media campaign for him. His strength is playing the victim. The more he's maligned in the Fake News media, the more his loyal base is outraged. The more sanctions a judge will lay on him, the more his minions will gather around him.
In the background, his propagandists (like Miller) help promote his victimhood, and his strategists, like Flynn, lend their considerable expertise to such notions as huge camps (only for illegals, right? Right?) and how to hook the bones together for a shift in the relative powers of SCOTUS and Congress. Flynn, you may remember, is a counter-intelligence expert.
If you read Mattis' excellent book, you'll see that he is a general first, not a politician. Although ranks above two stars are required to attend certain schools to prepare them for and to maintain their ranks, their politics are narrowly drawn. Colin Powell was a water carrier with wider political pretensions. Mattis is a soldier (well, Marine).
Corb's point about military demographics is not moot. While officers (& enlisted) swear an oath to the Constitution, their oath also includes a vertical chain of command that leads to the Commander-in-Chief. The oath reads, "...obey all lawful orders..." I do not want to see our military forces having to step in to handle any fucking thing. This isn't simply sending the 101st Airborne to educate a southern governor on what to do about a Supreme Court decision regarding segregation in schools.
Certain points made upthread are important. Biden is an experienced statesman. But he's had several things attributed to him that work to dampen one's enthusiasm; of these were not his fault. The withdrawal from Afghanistan, his stance on the mess in Israel, and the student loan issue. He fights an uphill battle because of SCOTUS and House imbalances and the slenderist majority in the Senate.
The references to ancient Rome are cute. But I'd look back as far as the early to mid 20th Century for trends that closely resemble ours. Once that particular train gets moving, it creates tremendous momentum. At some point, it creates its own gravity. Let's create doubt about the validity of the government (check). Let's undermine faith in the Fourth Estate (check). Let's have a few echelons of scapegoats to blame for our national purity, who try to bleed us of our national essence. We can start with the illegals--you know, the huge camps--and get around to the liberals and perverts later. (check), (check). and (check).
All this rises above henny penny doom and gloomism because the voter margin that elected Trump was close. He got elected the first time because nobody took his base seriously. They were supposed to be uneducated wingnuts. It turned out that they combined with a well-placed cyberboost from abroad and the complete certainty that this dipshit could never get elected to get him in. Many credit Clinton's email "scandal" as the straw that broke the camel's back. WHoo!
All this from a candidate that nobody, probably not even him, expected to survive the primary. He had nitwits on his team and a handful of actually experienced folks to help him along, so he weeded out the non-sycophants. He wanted grift, not a job, but he was a magnet for a) hangers-on and b) true believers. Also, several otherwise intelligent and capable public servants who thought they could be damage control. In time, Trump commandeered the GOP via threats to fuck up their chances for re-election, which escalated into fear for their safety, perhaps their lives.
Considering the rise of Trumpism, the perceived decline in Trump's popularity isn't as encouraging as it might be. Weaknesses in our system favor the GOP's chances in the upcoming presidential election. Gerrymandering and the Electoral College are obvious immediate problems, and they cannot be tweaked right now, if ever.
I shudder to think what could happen if a person other than Trump gets the GOP nod, and they hit the ground running with a Trumpist plan to ensure their party's reign for whatever they can squeeze out of having control of both chambers of Congress, SCOTUS, and a truly weaponized DOJ.
posted by mule98J at 12:05 PM on December 3, 2023 [11 favorites]
The GOP's weakness (shared with Democrats) is the amount of time they must spend worrying about reelections. Their fear of Trumpists paralyzes them. Trumpists' party is Trumpism. Trump has a keen sense of all grifters; he knows who to massage and when. Notice that he hasn't campaigned. He has rallies; he lets the media campaign for him. His strength is playing the victim. The more he's maligned in the Fake News media, the more his loyal base is outraged. The more sanctions a judge will lay on him, the more his minions will gather around him.
In the background, his propagandists (like Miller) help promote his victimhood, and his strategists, like Flynn, lend their considerable expertise to such notions as huge camps (only for illegals, right? Right?) and how to hook the bones together for a shift in the relative powers of SCOTUS and Congress. Flynn, you may remember, is a counter-intelligence expert.
If you read Mattis' excellent book, you'll see that he is a general first, not a politician. Although ranks above two stars are required to attend certain schools to prepare them for and to maintain their ranks, their politics are narrowly drawn. Colin Powell was a water carrier with wider political pretensions. Mattis is a soldier (well, Marine).
Corb's point about military demographics is not moot. While officers (& enlisted) swear an oath to the Constitution, their oath also includes a vertical chain of command that leads to the Commander-in-Chief. The oath reads, "...obey all lawful orders..." I do not want to see our military forces having to step in to handle any fucking thing. This isn't simply sending the 101st Airborne to educate a southern governor on what to do about a Supreme Court decision regarding segregation in schools.
Certain points made upthread are important. Biden is an experienced statesman. But he's had several things attributed to him that work to dampen one's enthusiasm; of these were not his fault. The withdrawal from Afghanistan, his stance on the mess in Israel, and the student loan issue. He fights an uphill battle because of SCOTUS and House imbalances and the slenderist majority in the Senate.
The references to ancient Rome are cute. But I'd look back as far as the early to mid 20th Century for trends that closely resemble ours. Once that particular train gets moving, it creates tremendous momentum. At some point, it creates its own gravity. Let's create doubt about the validity of the government (check). Let's undermine faith in the Fourth Estate (check). Let's have a few echelons of scapegoats to blame for our national purity, who try to bleed us of our national essence. We can start with the illegals--you know, the huge camps--and get around to the liberals and perverts later. (check), (check). and (check).
All this rises above henny penny doom and gloomism because the voter margin that elected Trump was close. He got elected the first time because nobody took his base seriously. They were supposed to be uneducated wingnuts. It turned out that they combined with a well-placed cyberboost from abroad and the complete certainty that this dipshit could never get elected to get him in. Many credit Clinton's email "scandal" as the straw that broke the camel's back. WHoo!
All this from a candidate that nobody, probably not even him, expected to survive the primary. He had nitwits on his team and a handful of actually experienced folks to help him along, so he weeded out the non-sycophants. He wanted grift, not a job, but he was a magnet for a) hangers-on and b) true believers. Also, several otherwise intelligent and capable public servants who thought they could be damage control. In time, Trump commandeered the GOP via threats to fuck up their chances for re-election, which escalated into fear for their safety, perhaps their lives.
Considering the rise of Trumpism, the perceived decline in Trump's popularity isn't as encouraging as it might be. Weaknesses in our system favor the GOP's chances in the upcoming presidential election. Gerrymandering and the Electoral College are obvious immediate problems, and they cannot be tweaked right now, if ever.
I shudder to think what could happen if a person other than Trump gets the GOP nod, and they hit the ground running with a Trumpist plan to ensure their party's reign for whatever they can squeeze out of having control of both chambers of Congress, SCOTUS, and a truly weaponized DOJ.
posted by mule98J at 12:05 PM on December 3, 2023 [11 favorites]
Trump could vanish in a puff of smoke like a magician this very instant and it would not change the Realpolitik of the United States of America one iota
Very true, but the Bannons and such would have a very hard time finding a figurehead that would tickle the evangelicals, natzi's, vax deniers, and other wackos. It really was quite an amazing phenomenon.
(praying for the past tense)
posted by sammyo at 12:14 PM on December 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
Very true, but the Bannons and such would have a very hard time finding a figurehead that would tickle the evangelicals, natzi's, vax deniers, and other wackos. It really was quite an amazing phenomenon.
(praying for the past tense)
posted by sammyo at 12:14 PM on December 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
the occupant of the White House has profound influence on all manner of things, even though s/he can not simply MAKE STUFF HAPPEN on a whim
I'll actually disagree here, I think there are some things that Biden could have done that could have resonated deeply and cut strongly into some of the people currently being lured by Trump's nonsense. The office of the Executive actually has an immense amount of administrative authority, and that could absolutely have been exercised in a number of different ways.
Biden overall, in my view, has governed from a position of the danger's all over now, boys. He's been cautious, with a focus on avoiding rocking the boat too much, and embracing a position as essentially a caretaker president, rather than one taking particularly bold action. Even the much-vaunted student loan forgiveness was mealy-mouthed, only forgiving a portion of loans for a portion of people, leaving a lot of people unsure whether or not it was going to apply to them. And he has not, by and large, taken the fears of really any segment of the American public seriously. He hasn't taken the fears of either the left or the right seriously. He's just trying to coast on this "I'm the respectable middle ground, I'm good old safe reliable Joe", and that just doesn't work with the prices of rent, food, and gas rising.
Biden hears about shit and makes incremental solutions - like lowering gas prices 13 and 31 cents a gallon - at best for my car, a full tank going from 73.50$ to 69$. Yeah, I guess the extra four bucks a tank is nice, but it's not going to actually help me feel less pinched.
Biden actually has a lot more power than he wants you to believe he has. The Executive Branch covers all federal agencies, and their rule making, and he gets a lot of leeway in how he directs their attention, as long as it's within their mandate. He could make an executive order directing that all federal agencies providing benefits need to create rules of presumption in favor of the applicant when things are in doubt. He could write an executive order directing the Department of Justice focus on civil suits against corporations, or that no federal enforcement action be taken whatsoever against possession charges in states that have legalized or decriminalized possession. And he has the pardon power. Biden could right now pardon all federal marijuana prisoners, for example, nationwide, and send people home to their families. You want people out in the streets beating down doors organizing for Joe Biden? That's how you get it.
But no. He doesn't want to do that, because things like that haven't been focus tested and fundamentally can't be focus tested, because they're too big a change. They've never been done before, and so he's unwilling to do them.
posted by corb at 1:09 PM on December 3, 2023 [18 favorites]
I'll actually disagree here, I think there are some things that Biden could have done that could have resonated deeply and cut strongly into some of the people currently being lured by Trump's nonsense. The office of the Executive actually has an immense amount of administrative authority, and that could absolutely have been exercised in a number of different ways.
Biden overall, in my view, has governed from a position of the danger's all over now, boys. He's been cautious, with a focus on avoiding rocking the boat too much, and embracing a position as essentially a caretaker president, rather than one taking particularly bold action. Even the much-vaunted student loan forgiveness was mealy-mouthed, only forgiving a portion of loans for a portion of people, leaving a lot of people unsure whether or not it was going to apply to them. And he has not, by and large, taken the fears of really any segment of the American public seriously. He hasn't taken the fears of either the left or the right seriously. He's just trying to coast on this "I'm the respectable middle ground, I'm good old safe reliable Joe", and that just doesn't work with the prices of rent, food, and gas rising.
Biden hears about shit and makes incremental solutions - like lowering gas prices 13 and 31 cents a gallon - at best for my car, a full tank going from 73.50$ to 69$. Yeah, I guess the extra four bucks a tank is nice, but it's not going to actually help me feel less pinched.
Biden actually has a lot more power than he wants you to believe he has. The Executive Branch covers all federal agencies, and their rule making, and he gets a lot of leeway in how he directs their attention, as long as it's within their mandate. He could make an executive order directing that all federal agencies providing benefits need to create rules of presumption in favor of the applicant when things are in doubt. He could write an executive order directing the Department of Justice focus on civil suits against corporations, or that no federal enforcement action be taken whatsoever against possession charges in states that have legalized or decriminalized possession. And he has the pardon power. Biden could right now pardon all federal marijuana prisoners, for example, nationwide, and send people home to their families. You want people out in the streets beating down doors organizing for Joe Biden? That's how you get it.
But no. He doesn't want to do that, because things like that haven't been focus tested and fundamentally can't be focus tested, because they're too big a change. They've never been done before, and so he's unwilling to do them.
posted by corb at 1:09 PM on December 3, 2023 [18 favorites]
Was he elected to not be Trump or to fix voters' economic lives? Wouldn't Bernie have won the primary if that's what people wanted?
posted by Selena777 at 2:39 PM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Selena777 at 2:39 PM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
I feel strongly that MeFites will benefit from reading Jeff Sharlet’s The Undertow: Scenes From a Slow Civil War (Goodreads). (Here’s Sharlet talking with Marc Maron on his podcast.) He takes a very sharp look at the convergence of evangelical faith, guns, men’s rights, January 6, Ashley Babbit, QAnon, and the story of Trump as a matter of belief and deciphering secret knowledge. Policy becomes damn near irrelevant in the face of Not Knowing, Only Feeling as a unifying force.
posted by MonkeyToes at 3:16 PM on December 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by MonkeyToes at 3:16 PM on December 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
kittens for breakfast, yes it would be good if the US system of government led to faster progress. That is most definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. But at the moment, the choice is between competent and boring on the one hand versus authoritarian and fascist on the other. I daresay we need to focus on that problem first.
I also think that part of the explanation for Biden's lackluster poll performances (such as it matters at this early stage, which isn't "not at all" but also isn't "RUN FOR THE HILLS!") is that voters aren't AWARE of his accomplishments. Did you hear recently about the respondent who blamed Biden for the repeal of Roe because it happened during his presidency? True story.
The work that needs to happen - by Biden, by his surrogates, by his campaign staff, and by anyone who wants to stop the facist-ward march - is to tell people what he has done. This will not be easy. But me - well, I've volunteered in every election since 2004. I fully intend to celebrate the 20th anniversary of my political activism by volunteering again. How 'bout you?
posted by fingers_of_fire at 3:18 PM on December 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
I also think that part of the explanation for Biden's lackluster poll performances (such as it matters at this early stage, which isn't "not at all" but also isn't "RUN FOR THE HILLS!") is that voters aren't AWARE of his accomplishments. Did you hear recently about the respondent who blamed Biden for the repeal of Roe because it happened during his presidency? True story.
The work that needs to happen - by Biden, by his surrogates, by his campaign staff, and by anyone who wants to stop the facist-ward march - is to tell people what he has done. This will not be easy. But me - well, I've volunteered in every election since 2004. I fully intend to celebrate the 20th anniversary of my political activism by volunteering again. How 'bout you?
posted by fingers_of_fire at 3:18 PM on December 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
There is absolutely the possibility, right now, of Trump being back in the White House. But if he gets there, I highly doubt things would go according to whatever plan he has, present or future, because plans are never part of his grift.
No, he's part of the plans of others who have found their nirvana in someone with a big enough ego to think it's actually all about him and a small enough intellect not to figure out he's a patsy. It's not Trump's plans anyone should be worried about, it's the people behind him who will emerge when he mysteriously falls off the perch at an opportune time that everyone should be worried about. If you think another Trump presidency sounds bad, imagine how things would be with an actual competent fascist government in place.
posted by dg at 3:21 PM on December 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
No, he's part of the plans of others who have found their nirvana in someone with a big enough ego to think it's actually all about him and a small enough intellect not to figure out he's a patsy. It's not Trump's plans anyone should be worried about, it's the people behind him who will emerge when he mysteriously falls off the perch at an opportune time that everyone should be worried about. If you think another Trump presidency sounds bad, imagine how things would be with an actual competent fascist government in place.
posted by dg at 3:21 PM on December 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
I'm not sure that I buy it, but someone will, I suppose
As someone who regularly tries to build simple things with Lego while toddlers smash into it and tear it down - I buy it.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 3:22 PM on December 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
As someone who regularly tries to build simple things with Lego while toddlers smash into it and tear it down - I buy it.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 3:22 PM on December 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
"The safety of our clients' investment is always our paramount concern."
-Chairman of The intergalactic banking clan.
posted by clavdivs at 3:29 PM on December 3, 2023
-Chairman of The intergalactic banking clan.
posted by clavdivs at 3:29 PM on December 3, 2023
Wouldn't Bernie have won the primary if that's what people wanted?
The primary ultimately wasn't about what the people wanted. It was about what James Clyburn and the rest of the Democratic institutional power structure wanted.
posted by Gadarene at 3:32 PM on December 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
The primary ultimately wasn't about what the people wanted. It was about what James Clyburn and the rest of the Democratic institutional power structure wanted.
posted by Gadarene at 3:32 PM on December 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
Biden is not God, or King, or a dictator. It's hard to take complaints about things Biden has "failed" on seriously when the complainer ignores the role of other branches of government and the states and state governments in blocking the Biden administration's goals. He can't just make things happen by Presenting harder.
This.
All the magical executive orders you imagine Biden passing are just that -- magic, and therefore a fantasy. The Supreme Court is deeply hostile to almost everything he's done by executive fiat, from emissions rules to student loan forgiveness to suspensions of oil and gas leasing.
What we have is a media obsessed with false "balance", and an activist left poisoned by social media oneupmanship into finding the worst possible spin on every development.
Biden's considerable successes at moving things in a progressive direction are downplayed, denounced as falling short of an imaginary superior outcome, or just ignored. People chase after pointless fantasies -- like Biden "declaring a climate emergency" -- or become obsessed with blaming Biden for stuff that mostly isn't under his control -- like the situation in Gaza. And when the federal government is forced to take a regressive action by the courts -- like resuming oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters, or allowing student loan repayments to resume -- Biden is wrongly blamed for it.
History will in fact show the Biden presidency to have been a major inflection point in U.S. history -- when the transition to clean energy kicked into high gear, environmental justice finally began to be taken seriously, and U.S. trade, industrial, and labor policy shifted in a decisively leftward direction after decades of movement to the right. I follow federal policy closely for my job, and I know the scale of the shifts are enormous. It's simply not up for debate.
On a policy level, Biden is to the left of Obama, Clinton, and Carter -- more progressive than any Dem POTUS since LBJ. When I say this to lefty people, they sometimes scoff... but they can't refute it, particularly if they have a decent understanding of the last 50-60 years of federal policy.
But such things take time to be observable at ground level. And when mainstream journalists are not interested in connecting the dots clearly for people, then emotionally colored bits of decontextualized news delivered via social media feeds take the place of thoughtful analysis, and millions of people are left in the dark about the good stuff, and sent spiraling into anger, disgust, depression, etc. by heavily spun, viral narratives that exaggerate the bad stuff.
I'm not saying "people are just dumb". People's views are a product of their information ecosystem. Right now, the entire world is reeling from a breakdown of the 20th-century mass media model, and its replacement by virality-driven social media as the major means by which most people get their news. It's a volatile, dangerous time. When the 20th-century mass media -- like film and radio -- were coming into being, there was also an upsurge of fascism. Sometimes a technological leap forward gives bad actors a new opportunity to catapult their backwards idea into society via the new communications channels. Add in a bit of ageism and ableism, et voila.
In the next 20-30 years, we'll probably rig up some kind of regulatory structure that tames the worst excesses of the new media. But in the meantime, it's up to us as individuals to try to navigate the maelstrom.
I think Biden actually has a pretty good chance of winning a second term, and if he does, I hope he can consolidate the major shifts that have begun in the last 3 years. We'll see.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:34 PM on December 3, 2023 [41 favorites]
This.
All the magical executive orders you imagine Biden passing are just that -- magic, and therefore a fantasy. The Supreme Court is deeply hostile to almost everything he's done by executive fiat, from emissions rules to student loan forgiveness to suspensions of oil and gas leasing.
What we have is a media obsessed with false "balance", and an activist left poisoned by social media oneupmanship into finding the worst possible spin on every development.
Biden's considerable successes at moving things in a progressive direction are downplayed, denounced as falling short of an imaginary superior outcome, or just ignored. People chase after pointless fantasies -- like Biden "declaring a climate emergency" -- or become obsessed with blaming Biden for stuff that mostly isn't under his control -- like the situation in Gaza. And when the federal government is forced to take a regressive action by the courts -- like resuming oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters, or allowing student loan repayments to resume -- Biden is wrongly blamed for it.
History will in fact show the Biden presidency to have been a major inflection point in U.S. history -- when the transition to clean energy kicked into high gear, environmental justice finally began to be taken seriously, and U.S. trade, industrial, and labor policy shifted in a decisively leftward direction after decades of movement to the right. I follow federal policy closely for my job, and I know the scale of the shifts are enormous. It's simply not up for debate.
On a policy level, Biden is to the left of Obama, Clinton, and Carter -- more progressive than any Dem POTUS since LBJ. When I say this to lefty people, they sometimes scoff... but they can't refute it, particularly if they have a decent understanding of the last 50-60 years of federal policy.
But such things take time to be observable at ground level. And when mainstream journalists are not interested in connecting the dots clearly for people, then emotionally colored bits of decontextualized news delivered via social media feeds take the place of thoughtful analysis, and millions of people are left in the dark about the good stuff, and sent spiraling into anger, disgust, depression, etc. by heavily spun, viral narratives that exaggerate the bad stuff.
I'm not saying "people are just dumb". People's views are a product of their information ecosystem. Right now, the entire world is reeling from a breakdown of the 20th-century mass media model, and its replacement by virality-driven social media as the major means by which most people get their news. It's a volatile, dangerous time. When the 20th-century mass media -- like film and radio -- were coming into being, there was also an upsurge of fascism. Sometimes a technological leap forward gives bad actors a new opportunity to catapult their backwards idea into society via the new communications channels. Add in a bit of ageism and ableism, et voila.
In the next 20-30 years, we'll probably rig up some kind of regulatory structure that tames the worst excesses of the new media. But in the meantime, it's up to us as individuals to try to navigate the maelstrom.
I think Biden actually has a pretty good chance of winning a second term, and if he does, I hope he can consolidate the major shifts that have begun in the last 3 years. We'll see.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:34 PM on December 3, 2023 [41 favorites]
You'll have to forgive me for my cynicism, but I find it hard to believe that someone who's literally been in electoral politics for fifty years simply doesn't know how to sell himself. I think the problem is the product.
I would argue that, if Biden is competent, then many of his actions are deliberate but poor -- the weak and inconsistent work for student loan forgiveness, the unequivocal support for Israel's military actions in the wake of the Hamas terror attack, the inability to do anything at all to protect the right to abortion when everyone knew for years what the Supreme Court would do, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I don't think it's a question of boring competence versus terrifying fascism, I think it's a question of middle of the road bullshit liberalism versus terrifying fascism. Trump may be worse, but Biden isn't good enough, and it seems like it's always a question of, "Is this the right time to worry about the general uselessness of the democratic party when it comes to doing anything other than fundraising, now, with so much at stake?" When has there ever not been so much at stake? When will it be time to elect someone who at last acts like they give a fucking shit? I think the clock has run down on these people and I'm not sad about it.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:40 PM on December 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
I would argue that, if Biden is competent, then many of his actions are deliberate but poor -- the weak and inconsistent work for student loan forgiveness, the unequivocal support for Israel's military actions in the wake of the Hamas terror attack, the inability to do anything at all to protect the right to abortion when everyone knew for years what the Supreme Court would do, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I don't think it's a question of boring competence versus terrifying fascism, I think it's a question of middle of the road bullshit liberalism versus terrifying fascism. Trump may be worse, but Biden isn't good enough, and it seems like it's always a question of, "Is this the right time to worry about the general uselessness of the democratic party when it comes to doing anything other than fundraising, now, with so much at stake?" When has there ever not been so much at stake? When will it be time to elect someone who at last acts like they give a fucking shit? I think the clock has run down on these people and I'm not sad about it.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:40 PM on December 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
I would argue that, if Biden is competent, then many of his actions are deliberate but poor -- the weak and inconsistent work for student loan forgiveness
Sorry, I can't get past this. Not to put to fine a point on it, but: This is a crock.
Biden has moved mountains to attempt student loan forgiveness half a dozen different ways, coming back for round after round against court vetoes. He's forgiven tens of billions of dollars of loans -- multiple orders of magnitude more than any other president. He's the first one that's actually tried to do it on a mass scale. And he's really tried! And he keeps trying!
And you're doing exactly what I said above -- comparing this to an imaginary superior outcome that simply isn't possible under current conditions.
Biden's competence, informed by those 50 years in government, is actually remarkable. I think he makes so much of what he does look so easy that people don't see the work and the skill. The massive legislative packages he passed with the most absurdly razor-thin margins in the Senate? That really came down to Biden personally sweet-talking Manchin, over and over again. I don't think anyone else could have done it. The now sadly shattered ceasefire and hostage/prisoner exchange in Israel? That was Biden and his team at work, trying desperately to keep two bad actors (by which I mean the Netanyahu govt. and Hamas) from the fight they both want. The revitalization and, indeed, expansion of NATO in response to Russian imperialism in Ukraine? Again, Biden working the phones across Europe.
People focus on the surface optics -- he stutters, he says the same platitudes over and over, he's 81 -- and don't see the mind underneath... unless they actually take time to consider that their preconceptions may be wrong.
Hey, I was one of them! I dismissed Biden as an aging buffoon, up until about the midpoint of the 2020 primaries. Then I slowly started realizing: He understands electoral politics better than anyone else in the Dem field. He proved it again in the general election. He is continually underestimated by people who can't see past their existing images of him. I'm glad I eventually started to take a closer look.
I encourage people to look up and watch long-form, policy-oriented interviews with Biden. He typically does at least one or two a year. Listen closely to what he says about his views, and his philosophy of politics and governance. You may be surprised at what you learn. If you're willing to learn.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:51 PM on December 3, 2023 [44 favorites]
Sorry, I can't get past this. Not to put to fine a point on it, but: This is a crock.
Biden has moved mountains to attempt student loan forgiveness half a dozen different ways, coming back for round after round against court vetoes. He's forgiven tens of billions of dollars of loans -- multiple orders of magnitude more than any other president. He's the first one that's actually tried to do it on a mass scale. And he's really tried! And he keeps trying!
And you're doing exactly what I said above -- comparing this to an imaginary superior outcome that simply isn't possible under current conditions.
Biden's competence, informed by those 50 years in government, is actually remarkable. I think he makes so much of what he does look so easy that people don't see the work and the skill. The massive legislative packages he passed with the most absurdly razor-thin margins in the Senate? That really came down to Biden personally sweet-talking Manchin, over and over again. I don't think anyone else could have done it. The now sadly shattered ceasefire and hostage/prisoner exchange in Israel? That was Biden and his team at work, trying desperately to keep two bad actors (by which I mean the Netanyahu govt. and Hamas) from the fight they both want. The revitalization and, indeed, expansion of NATO in response to Russian imperialism in Ukraine? Again, Biden working the phones across Europe.
People focus on the surface optics -- he stutters, he says the same platitudes over and over, he's 81 -- and don't see the mind underneath... unless they actually take time to consider that their preconceptions may be wrong.
Hey, I was one of them! I dismissed Biden as an aging buffoon, up until about the midpoint of the 2020 primaries. Then I slowly started realizing: He understands electoral politics better than anyone else in the Dem field. He proved it again in the general election. He is continually underestimated by people who can't see past their existing images of him. I'm glad I eventually started to take a closer look.
I encourage people to look up and watch long-form, policy-oriented interviews with Biden. He typically does at least one or two a year. Listen closely to what he says about his views, and his philosophy of politics and governance. You may be surprised at what you learn. If you're willing to learn.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:51 PM on December 3, 2023 [44 favorites]
Well, like I said, if you think patronizing people who have a problem with Biden is going to help him win a second term, I have a feeling you might be in for a surprise. It didn't work in 2016 and I don't think it'll work now.
When it comes to student loans, Biden unambiguously said his plan was to forgive $10k per borrower. If taking him at his word makes me some kind of charmingly naive bumpkin who expects a magic man to be president, I guess I'm the fucking idiot for taking him at his word, right? No worries, hasn't happened since.
I am not yet super impressed with Biden's foreign policy. I'm glad you are. I have a lot of questions, but -- you'll be relieved to know -- not for you, thanks anyway. Goodnight.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:29 PM on December 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
When it comes to student loans, Biden unambiguously said his plan was to forgive $10k per borrower. If taking him at his word makes me some kind of charmingly naive bumpkin who expects a magic man to be president, I guess I'm the fucking idiot for taking him at his word, right? No worries, hasn't happened since.
I am not yet super impressed with Biden's foreign policy. I'm glad you are. I have a lot of questions, but -- you'll be relieved to know -- not for you, thanks anyway. Goodnight.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:29 PM on December 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
The primary ultimately wasn't about what the people wanted. It was about what James Clyburn and the rest of the Democratic institutional power structure wanted.
Ehhhh. I'd love to have President Bernie right now, but the fact is that he had his chance and couldn't close the deal. And if one discovers that one's working definition of "the people" mysteriously excludes Black voters, one might want to back up and reconsider how one got to that point and how one might avoid doing so again.
As one of those disappointed to end up with Joe instead of Bernie, I have to say he's impressed me quite a bit. Comparing what he managed to accomplish with razor-thin majorities and a radicalized judiciary to Obama's disappointing outcomes with much stronger majorities, there's no question in my mind that Biden is doing better work than any actually-existing president has in decades.
But quibbling over the quality of Biden's politicking is a bit missing the point anyway. To return to the OP, in Kagan's words, "I know that most people don’t think an asteroid is heading toward us and that’s part of the problem."
posted by Not A Thing at 4:32 PM on December 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
Ehhhh. I'd love to have President Bernie right now, but the fact is that he had his chance and couldn't close the deal. And if one discovers that one's working definition of "the people" mysteriously excludes Black voters, one might want to back up and reconsider how one got to that point and how one might avoid doing so again.
As one of those disappointed to end up with Joe instead of Bernie, I have to say he's impressed me quite a bit. Comparing what he managed to accomplish with razor-thin majorities and a radicalized judiciary to Obama's disappointing outcomes with much stronger majorities, there's no question in my mind that Biden is doing better work than any actually-existing president has in decades.
But quibbling over the quality of Biden's politicking is a bit missing the point anyway. To return to the OP, in Kagan's words, "I know that most people don’t think an asteroid is heading toward us and that’s part of the problem."
posted by Not A Thing at 4:32 PM on December 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
> I encourage people to look up and watch long-form, policy-oriented interviews with Biden.
Could you link a few of the ones you recommend please?
posted by I-Write-Essays at 4:34 PM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Could you link a few of the ones you recommend please?
posted by I-Write-Essays at 4:34 PM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
If the Biden administration's successes suffer from underexposure in the mainstream media, then Trump's success thrives on overexposure in the mainstream media. Even if some members of the GOP are growing weary of Trump, his base is a solid cadre of diehards who don't look past invective and pithy slogans. Polemicism being what it is now, it seems the way up for Biden is to aim for the tiny fraction of voters not locked into party politics. The rest of us are already in the groove we'll be in when it comes time to pull the lever.
Maybe Biden should begin his campaign sooner rather than later. I predict there will be no Presidential debate prior to the general election, so let the ad hominems begin in earnest.
posted by mule98J at 4:38 PM on December 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
Maybe Biden should begin his campaign sooner rather than later. I predict there will be no Presidential debate prior to the general election, so let the ad hominems begin in earnest.
posted by mule98J at 4:38 PM on December 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
I was about to say "Democratic party organization"--is it even an organization, really?
— Will Rogers
posted by kirkaracha at 5:03 PM on December 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
— Will Rogers
posted by kirkaracha at 5:03 PM on December 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
Maybe Biden should begin his campaign sooner rather than later. I predict there will be no Presidential debate prior to the general election, so let the ad hominems begin in earnest.
Does anyone think that he hasn't? On my Chromecast, for instance, I get sponsored Biden/Harris ads all the time.
My humble request for my fellow MeFites, however, is a simple one. Not aimed at a specific person, but at a vibe that's popped up both here and in innumerable other arguments on such topics.
I am sympathetic to the argument that Biden inherited a bad situation on multiple levels from awful predecessors, and is doing the best he can to make progress with limited tools. I understand those who argue that Biden is not a Green Lantern, cannot engage in mind control, and that many things that many on the left want to happen would require Trumpian overreach to even attempt.
But tread very lightly regarding "criticizing Biden means that you're pro-Trump" invective, please? Because it doesn't equate to that, it's insulting to insinuate that it equates to that, and if you would like to leave fellow left-of-centerites pissed off rather than thinking critically, that's the way to do it.
posted by delfin at 5:15 PM on December 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
Does anyone think that he hasn't? On my Chromecast, for instance, I get sponsored Biden/Harris ads all the time.
My humble request for my fellow MeFites, however, is a simple one. Not aimed at a specific person, but at a vibe that's popped up both here and in innumerable other arguments on such topics.
I am sympathetic to the argument that Biden inherited a bad situation on multiple levels from awful predecessors, and is doing the best he can to make progress with limited tools. I understand those who argue that Biden is not a Green Lantern, cannot engage in mind control, and that many things that many on the left want to happen would require Trumpian overreach to even attempt.
But tread very lightly regarding "criticizing Biden means that you're pro-Trump" invective, please? Because it doesn't equate to that, it's insulting to insinuate that it equates to that, and if you would like to leave fellow left-of-centerites pissed off rather than thinking critically, that's the way to do it.
posted by delfin at 5:15 PM on December 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
sure, criticize Biden all you want but if you're voting for anyone other than the Dem candidate come November 2024 (including not voting for anyone at all), yr saying fuck you to an awful lot of people
posted by kokaku at 5:44 PM on December 3, 2023 [22 favorites]
posted by kokaku at 5:44 PM on December 3, 2023 [22 favorites]
Criticizing Biden doesn't make someone pro-Trump. However, it often feels like a waste of time to people who are concerned about and trying to discuss the looming fascism. It feels as if that concern is being dismissed out of hand, or even worse being treated as "not the worst possible outcome" when it very much is. Any status quo that isn't literally fascism, is better than fascism.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 5:48 PM on December 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 5:48 PM on December 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
The Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency, explained
According to Brendan Nyhan, the Dartmouth political scientist who coined the term, the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency is "the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics." In other words, the American president is functionally all-powerful, and whenever he can't get something done, it's because he's not trying hard enough, or not trying smart enough.posted by kirkaracha at 5:59 PM on December 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
Nyhan further separates it into two variants: "the Reagan version of the Green Lantern Theory and the LBJ version of the Green Lantern Theory." The Reagan version, he says, holds that "if you only communicate well enough the public will rally to your side." The LBJ version says that "if the president only tried harder to win over congress they would vote through his legislative agenda." In both cases, Nyhan argues, "we've been sold a false bill of goods."
Well, you've convinced me; obviously, the president is a powerless figurehead. What are we all so worried about, then?
The problem is that the president is an extremely powerful person over people they have direct executive control over and have an incredible amount of power if they're willing to take a giant shit over the rule of law. Not to mention those sympathetic to the said taking a shit over the rule of law are often in the more authoritarian institutions of the US like border control making it a much easier thing to pull off illegally.
Could Biden enact an executive order demanding that a child poverty credit be given to every tax payer who would otherwise be eligible? Sure. He can EO on anything he wants till the cows come home. But there's going to be institutional pushback, judicial pushback, electoral pushback, and at that point are you willing to blow up the entire political system for policy objectives?
Trump can write an EO saying deport all non-citizen Muslims and deny them entry at the border. The courts will absolutely tell Trump to go get fucked. Trump pushes back. The border control (or at least their union) will most likely go along with it and be complicit. At that point what do you do? The commander in chief is openly subverting the rule of law. The only safety valve is impeachment and removal and it's paralyzed by political theater. So you can't call in the army. Do you have city PDs push back against it? Will they stay under city civilian control or will they obey Trump if he tries to federalize them? This is all terrifying as fuck what-ifs but all perfectly possible under the more determined authoritarian who wants to take over the United States.
This is the difference between Trump and Biden. Trump is more than willing to shoot the proverbial hostage of American Democracy to hurt people who aren't straight, white, male, and Republican, and his electorate will welcome it. They will cheer it because they think it's lost hegemony coming back to them.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:47 PM on December 3, 2023 [19 favorites]
The problem is that the president is an extremely powerful person over people they have direct executive control over and have an incredible amount of power if they're willing to take a giant shit over the rule of law. Not to mention those sympathetic to the said taking a shit over the rule of law are often in the more authoritarian institutions of the US like border control making it a much easier thing to pull off illegally.
Could Biden enact an executive order demanding that a child poverty credit be given to every tax payer who would otherwise be eligible? Sure. He can EO on anything he wants till the cows come home. But there's going to be institutional pushback, judicial pushback, electoral pushback, and at that point are you willing to blow up the entire political system for policy objectives?
Trump can write an EO saying deport all non-citizen Muslims and deny them entry at the border. The courts will absolutely tell Trump to go get fucked. Trump pushes back. The border control (or at least their union) will most likely go along with it and be complicit. At that point what do you do? The commander in chief is openly subverting the rule of law. The only safety valve is impeachment and removal and it's paralyzed by political theater. So you can't call in the army. Do you have city PDs push back against it? Will they stay under city civilian control or will they obey Trump if he tries to federalize them? This is all terrifying as fuck what-ifs but all perfectly possible under the more determined authoritarian who wants to take over the United States.
This is the difference between Trump and Biden. Trump is more than willing to shoot the proverbial hostage of American Democracy to hurt people who aren't straight, white, male, and Republican, and his electorate will welcome it. They will cheer it because they think it's lost hegemony coming back to them.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:47 PM on December 3, 2023 [19 favorites]
Can any of the people who believe that Biden has done as much as was possible explain why none of the things corb mentioned are possible?
Biden actually has a lot more power than he wants you to believe he has. The Executive Branch covers all federal agencies, and their rule making, and he gets a lot of leeway in how he directs their attention, as long as it's within their mandate. He could make an executive order directing that all federal agencies providing benefits need to create rules of presumption in favor of the applicant when things are in doubt. He could write an executive order directing the Department of Justice focus on civil suits against corporations, or that no federal enforcement action be taken whatsoever against possession charges in states that have legalized or decriminalized possession. And he has the pardon power. Biden could right now pardon all federal marijuana prisoners, for example, nationwide, and send people home to their families. You want people out in the streets beating down doors organizing for Joe Biden? That's how you get it.
Those all sound like great things, and they don't seem like they would be shooting the proverbial hostage, they seem like they would be actively signalling that he intends to do the utmost to improve people's lives and turn the ship of state around. I of course don't think he *wants* to do those things, but they sound very possible.
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:56 PM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Biden actually has a lot more power than he wants you to believe he has. The Executive Branch covers all federal agencies, and their rule making, and he gets a lot of leeway in how he directs their attention, as long as it's within their mandate. He could make an executive order directing that all federal agencies providing benefits need to create rules of presumption in favor of the applicant when things are in doubt. He could write an executive order directing the Department of Justice focus on civil suits against corporations, or that no federal enforcement action be taken whatsoever against possession charges in states that have legalized or decriminalized possession. And he has the pardon power. Biden could right now pardon all federal marijuana prisoners, for example, nationwide, and send people home to their families. You want people out in the streets beating down doors organizing for Joe Biden? That's how you get it.
Those all sound like great things, and they don't seem like they would be shooting the proverbial hostage, they seem like they would be actively signalling that he intends to do the utmost to improve people's lives and turn the ship of state around. I of course don't think he *wants* to do those things, but they sound very possible.
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:56 PM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Isn't this a thing he literally did, and then SCOTUS said he couldn't do it?
He tried to do it in the safest, most anodyne way possible and the Supreme Court still went “nah fuck you” so why play that game at all? The Department of Education owns all federal student loan debt so just tell them to forgive it all, effective immediately, then dare the Supreme Court to collect the loans themselves.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:12 PM on December 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
He tried to do it in the safest, most anodyne way possible and the Supreme Court still went “nah fuck you” so why play that game at all? The Department of Education owns all federal student loan debt so just tell them to forgive it all, effective immediately, then dare the Supreme Court to collect the loans themselves.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:12 PM on December 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
sure, criticize Biden all you want but if you're voting for anyone other than the Dem candidate come November 2024 (including not voting for anyone at all), yr saying fuck you to an awful lot of people
Which are two separate considerations, of course.
If Joe Biden remains the nominee next year, which I fully expect barring some unforeseen event, I will vote for him with enthusiasm for the same reason that I did so in 2020 -- because he is not Donald Trump. If Trump is not the nominee due to some other unforeseen event, there are no Republicans who could earn my vote because every single one of them is complicit in aiding and abetting Trumpism. Every one. There are no honorable Republicans at this stage, any theoretical "No Labels" interlopers are bad-faith actors at best, and even if there a theoretical honorable Republican existed they couldn't draw more than three votes in any primary, anyway.
But what that paradigm removes from Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats is accountability. If they have my vote and do not need to do a single thing to earn it, and they know that they cannot lose it, what recourse do I have if I feel that they are screwing up very, very badly on issues that matter significantly to me? Why should they even pretend to consider my opinions?
I will stand against Trump and those who would gladly be the next Trump every time. But I do expect better from Dems than from Trumpists, simply because Dems are capable of being better. And I reserve the right to yell when I feel like very low bars aren't being cleared.
posted by delfin at 7:17 PM on December 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
Which are two separate considerations, of course.
If Joe Biden remains the nominee next year, which I fully expect barring some unforeseen event, I will vote for him with enthusiasm for the same reason that I did so in 2020 -- because he is not Donald Trump. If Trump is not the nominee due to some other unforeseen event, there are no Republicans who could earn my vote because every single one of them is complicit in aiding and abetting Trumpism. Every one. There are no honorable Republicans at this stage, any theoretical "No Labels" interlopers are bad-faith actors at best, and even if there a theoretical honorable Republican existed they couldn't draw more than three votes in any primary, anyway.
But what that paradigm removes from Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats is accountability. If they have my vote and do not need to do a single thing to earn it, and they know that they cannot lose it, what recourse do I have if I feel that they are screwing up very, very badly on issues that matter significantly to me? Why should they even pretend to consider my opinions?
I will stand against Trump and those who would gladly be the next Trump every time. But I do expect better from Dems than from Trumpists, simply because Dems are capable of being better. And I reserve the right to yell when I feel like very low bars aren't being cleared.
posted by delfin at 7:17 PM on December 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
Can any of the people who believe that Biden has done as much as was possible explain why none of the things corb mentioned are possible?
It's easy for anyone to make up a list of executive actions that they personally think Biden can and should take.
The degree to which each of those actions is even possible is going to depend on a big thicket of legal arguments and precedents. If, as is sometimes the case, the Biden administration's best legal analysis is that its ability to take certain actions by fiat is constrained, then asserting that the "real" reason they're not doing it is that Biden is a wimp, or a fool, or has bad moral values, is a bad faith argument. I'd also say it's a manifestation of the unfortunate wish for, essentially, a benevolent dictator, who will bend or break the rules a la Trump... "but he'll be our dictator!"
I personally think it's also the case that Biden keeps his finger on the pulse of the general public, and the Democratic electorate, and is pretty closely attuned to what his base wants. The problem that I see a lot of folks on the left have is that they think they are the base. They are a part of the base... but only one part. A very large chunk of the most reliable Dem voters are moderates, rather than strong progressives. The Democratic party, on the whole, is just far more moderate than the GOP is.
This is why Biden beat Bernie in 2020 (and why HRC beat Bernie in 2016)... notwithstanding the tired conspiracy theories still rattling around in some circles about the evil DNC "rigging" everything against Saint Sanders.
On the latter point, I strongly recommend (as I have before) studying the 2021 Pew Political Typology, a highly detailed analysis of the American electorate. When you look at who the most reliable voters on the Dem side are, Biden's policymaking makes a whole lot of sense. He's actually working pretty hard to try to give his actual base what it wants. Biden has in fact shifted federal policy dramatically in a progressive direction, on many fronts... but he's not going to get super far ahead of where the center of gravity of the party is.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:36 PM on December 3, 2023 [19 favorites]
It's easy for anyone to make up a list of executive actions that they personally think Biden can and should take.
The degree to which each of those actions is even possible is going to depend on a big thicket of legal arguments and precedents. If, as is sometimes the case, the Biden administration's best legal analysis is that its ability to take certain actions by fiat is constrained, then asserting that the "real" reason they're not doing it is that Biden is a wimp, or a fool, or has bad moral values, is a bad faith argument. I'd also say it's a manifestation of the unfortunate wish for, essentially, a benevolent dictator, who will bend or break the rules a la Trump... "but he'll be our dictator!"
I personally think it's also the case that Biden keeps his finger on the pulse of the general public, and the Democratic electorate, and is pretty closely attuned to what his base wants. The problem that I see a lot of folks on the left have is that they think they are the base. They are a part of the base... but only one part. A very large chunk of the most reliable Dem voters are moderates, rather than strong progressives. The Democratic party, on the whole, is just far more moderate than the GOP is.
This is why Biden beat Bernie in 2020 (and why HRC beat Bernie in 2016)... notwithstanding the tired conspiracy theories still rattling around in some circles about the evil DNC "rigging" everything against Saint Sanders.
On the latter point, I strongly recommend (as I have before) studying the 2021 Pew Political Typology, a highly detailed analysis of the American electorate. When you look at who the most reliable voters on the Dem side are, Biden's policymaking makes a whole lot of sense. He's actually working pretty hard to try to give his actual base what it wants. Biden has in fact shifted federal policy dramatically in a progressive direction, on many fronts... but he's not going to get super far ahead of where the center of gravity of the party is.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:36 PM on December 3, 2023 [19 favorites]
Just to drill right down into the Pew typology, here is a direct link to Pew's analysis of the single largest bloc of Dem voters, what it calls Democratic Mainstays. A few quotes:
Democratic Mainstays are one of the largest groups in the political typology and the largest single group as a share of the Democratic coalition. They generally favor policies that expand the social safety net and support higher taxes on corporations. But they are somewhat more hawkish than other Democratic-oriented groups on foreign policy and less liberal on immigration policy and some social issues. ...
Democratic Mainstays are slightly older and have less formal education than other Democratic-oriented groups. They are the group with the largest share of Black non-Hispanic adults (26%), and six-in-ten are women.
They are the only Democratic-oriented typology group in which a larger share say that the decline in the share of Americans belonging to an organized religion is bad for society than say this is good for society. Democratic Mainstays also are more religiously observant than other Democratic-oriented groups. ...
More than half of Democratic Mainstays (58%) describe themselves as moderate. Three-in-ten say they are liberal, while 9% say they are conservative. ...
[W]hen it comes to criminal justice, a majority of Democratic Mainstays (59%) favor the death penalty in cases of murder, and about seven-in-ten (73%) say that violent crime is a very big problem in the country today. Mainstays overwhelmingly think that funding for police in their area should either stay the same (42%) or be increased (47%); just 11% say it should be decreased.
Democratic Mainstays are also less likely to favor expansive policies on immigration than other Democratic-oriented groups: 28% think the number of legal immigrants admitted to the country should increase, compared with 44% of Establishment Liberals and majorities of Outsider Left (54%) and Progressive Left (63%). And they are the typology group most likely to say that both border security and a path to citizenship should be given equal priority in dealing with illegal immigration in the U.S. – 57% say this.
Democratic Mainstays are the sole Democratic-oriented group in which a majority (80%) say U.S. policies should try to keep it so America is the only military superpower, and 84% say the size of America’s military should either stay the same (50%) or increase (35%).
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:43 PM on December 3, 2023 [11 favorites]
Democratic Mainstays are one of the largest groups in the political typology and the largest single group as a share of the Democratic coalition. They generally favor policies that expand the social safety net and support higher taxes on corporations. But they are somewhat more hawkish than other Democratic-oriented groups on foreign policy and less liberal on immigration policy and some social issues. ...
Democratic Mainstays are slightly older and have less formal education than other Democratic-oriented groups. They are the group with the largest share of Black non-Hispanic adults (26%), and six-in-ten are women.
They are the only Democratic-oriented typology group in which a larger share say that the decline in the share of Americans belonging to an organized religion is bad for society than say this is good for society. Democratic Mainstays also are more religiously observant than other Democratic-oriented groups. ...
More than half of Democratic Mainstays (58%) describe themselves as moderate. Three-in-ten say they are liberal, while 9% say they are conservative. ...
[W]hen it comes to criminal justice, a majority of Democratic Mainstays (59%) favor the death penalty in cases of murder, and about seven-in-ten (73%) say that violent crime is a very big problem in the country today. Mainstays overwhelmingly think that funding for police in their area should either stay the same (42%) or be increased (47%); just 11% say it should be decreased.
Democratic Mainstays are also less likely to favor expansive policies on immigration than other Democratic-oriented groups: 28% think the number of legal immigrants admitted to the country should increase, compared with 44% of Establishment Liberals and majorities of Outsider Left (54%) and Progressive Left (63%). And they are the typology group most likely to say that both border security and a path to citizenship should be given equal priority in dealing with illegal immigration in the U.S. – 57% say this.
Democratic Mainstays are the sole Democratic-oriented group in which a majority (80%) say U.S. policies should try to keep it so America is the only military superpower, and 84% say the size of America’s military should either stay the same (50%) or increase (35%).
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:43 PM on December 3, 2023 [11 favorites]
It's easy to imagine how to push through reforms that would be great when you're in power, but there's a good reason it's hard to make changes like this. The reason is that democracy only functions when people are able to rule and be ruled in turn. You have to be able to peacefully give up power to the opposition party, and not have them be able to completely rearrange things the same way you did.
The democratic norms are designed to limit the harm that can be caused, but by doing so they also limit the good. We know there are people who would love to overturn all these norms, and the worst thing we could possibly do to empower them is to be the ones to do it first. Once you throw out those norms to push through reform, you may never give up power again to the Bad Guys, and democracy is dead by our own hand.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:43 PM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
The democratic norms are designed to limit the harm that can be caused, but by doing so they also limit the good. We know there are people who would love to overturn all these norms, and the worst thing we could possibly do to empower them is to be the ones to do it first. Once you throw out those norms to push through reform, you may never give up power again to the Bad Guys, and democracy is dead by our own hand.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:43 PM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
So, the real reason Biden hasn't done more isn't because it's actually impossible, it's because he doesn't want to, because he and the part of his base he cares about are a bunch of paranoid racists who want more police and imperial violence and everyone to go back to being God-Fearing Christians.
I mean, that's pretty much what I thought already, I don't see why so many people work so hard to convince people that he's actually a good guy in a tough situation who's doing the absolute best he can. He can just be an annoying Liberal who likes state violence and thinks people with blue hair whine too much, that's still better than Trump.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:07 PM on December 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
I mean, that's pretty much what I thought already, I don't see why so many people work so hard to convince people that he's actually a good guy in a tough situation who's doing the absolute best he can. He can just be an annoying Liberal who likes state violence and thinks people with blue hair whine too much, that's still better than Trump.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:07 PM on December 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
ok google remove from activity
posted by glonous keming at 8:19 PM on December 3, 2023
posted by glonous keming at 8:19 PM on December 3, 2023
You guys understand, though, that defying the norms is how the republicans stacked the Supreme Court. When they go low, we go high, and when we go high, we...lose, but we get to feel morally superior about it? I just feel tired of how, like, when the republicans win, we lose, but when the democrats win, we also lose. I know this apparently makes me a huge asshole, but I would love it if we could actually win somehow.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:21 PM on December 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:21 PM on December 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
hippybear, I formed that conclusion by reading this comment and the source it linked to.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:27 PM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:27 PM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
When they go low, we go high, and when we go high, we...lose, but we get to feel morally superior about it?
This is how it is with anything remotely political. No matter what, the good guys always lose. The problem is the actions that allow the 'bad guys' to win are at least slightly evil so, to win long-term, you have to sell a little of your soul. The US Supreme Court is a good example - it's been politically stacked in a way that advantages the Republican Party. What's to stop the current or any other Democratic President from appointing as many new justices as it takes to overwhelmingly stack the court for the next generation? Morals, that's what. That and because they want to be seen as the 'good guys' and people will call them names if they stoop to that sort of tactic.
Politics is an ugly game and, if you want to win by achieving the things you said you wanted to when running, you can't wear your white hat every day and you won't get re-elected. If you want to win by getting re-elected until you get carried out in a box, you do as little as possible and keep your head down, but you won't achieve anything.
posted by dg at 8:52 PM on December 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
This is how it is with anything remotely political. No matter what, the good guys always lose. The problem is the actions that allow the 'bad guys' to win are at least slightly evil so, to win long-term, you have to sell a little of your soul. The US Supreme Court is a good example - it's been politically stacked in a way that advantages the Republican Party. What's to stop the current or any other Democratic President from appointing as many new justices as it takes to overwhelmingly stack the court for the next generation? Morals, that's what. That and because they want to be seen as the 'good guys' and people will call them names if they stoop to that sort of tactic.
Politics is an ugly game and, if you want to win by achieving the things you said you wanted to when running, you can't wear your white hat every day and you won't get re-elected. If you want to win by getting re-elected until you get carried out in a box, you do as little as possible and keep your head down, but you won't achieve anything.
posted by dg at 8:52 PM on December 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
Mod note: (One from earlier removed; putting words in someone else's mouth)
posted by taz (staff) at 9:57 PM on December 3, 2023
posted by taz (staff) at 9:57 PM on December 3, 2023
On a policy level, Biden is to the left of Obama, Clinton, and Carter -- more progressive than any Dem POTUS since LBJ. When I say this to lefty people, they sometimes scoff... but they can't refute it, particularly if they have a decent understanding of the last 50-60 years of federal policy.
As VP, Biden was ahead of Obama on same-sex rights by a few years. I'm grateful for that and will be voting for a second term for him, because taking away recognition of rights — while not impossible — is much harder than not having recognition of those rights, in the first place.
I have other criticisms of his other actions in office, but Biden has made a clear argument in favor of the defense of democracy and he has stood behind that in word and in deed, to the extent the Constitutional bounds of his office that he respects have allowed.
Even if you're not queer, I think, or at least I hope that revocation of the rights formerly recognized by Roe v Wade may wake some of you up to the reality of what is at risk for your own personal safety, if another Republic insurrectionist or apologist is made president.
It might not be enough, because the propaganda machines of the Republic Party, Russia, and Israel run 24/7. But we have to try, because the cost of failure to meet these fascists head-on is simply too great.
It may even end most or all of humanity, if America was to fall into the hands of fascists. The stakes are as high as they have ever been and people — voters — will need to show up when it matters.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:18 AM on December 4, 2023 [10 favorites]
As VP, Biden was ahead of Obama on same-sex rights by a few years. I'm grateful for that and will be voting for a second term for him, because taking away recognition of rights — while not impossible — is much harder than not having recognition of those rights, in the first place.
I have other criticisms of his other actions in office, but Biden has made a clear argument in favor of the defense of democracy and he has stood behind that in word and in deed, to the extent the Constitutional bounds of his office that he respects have allowed.
Even if you're not queer, I think, or at least I hope that revocation of the rights formerly recognized by Roe v Wade may wake some of you up to the reality of what is at risk for your own personal safety, if another Republic insurrectionist or apologist is made president.
It might not be enough, because the propaganda machines of the Republic Party, Russia, and Israel run 24/7. But we have to try, because the cost of failure to meet these fascists head-on is simply too great.
It may even end most or all of humanity, if America was to fall into the hands of fascists. The stakes are as high as they have ever been and people — voters — will need to show up when it matters.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:18 AM on December 4, 2023 [10 favorites]
This always happens on MetaFilter, so no-one is surprised, but how does a post about the very real threat of a fascist take-over of the USA, about to happen next year, end up with a fight in the comments about how much Biden sucks?
Yes, an argument could be made that Trump is a candidate because the political establishment are not doing their jobs. That's fair enough. But I don't see that applying to Biden, in spite of his life-long establishment ties: he is doing a lot. Those who want him to rule through EOs are basically asking for a dictator from the left, which is a legitimate position, but not a democratic position. If you want a free and open democracy, you have to accept the fact that there are other citizens and they have different positions from yours.
One of the things that must be frustrating for all politicians is that if something happens on your watch, you own it, regardless of why it happened. The current Supreme Court is Trump's work. The situation in the Middle East is Trump's work. The situation in Ukraine is Trump's work. (The reverse happens too: Trump couldn't end The Affordable Care Act, for instance).
Now to pivot back to the OP: shouldn't there be some sort of discussion about how Trumpism has its roots in Russian interference? It's like because we never got to read the Müller report, it didn't happen, in spite of several people being convicted of crimes related to Russian interference in an American election.
Obviously, Trump has a huge American base, made out of real people who are idiots. But a lot of the misinformation they believe in has its roots in Russia, and a lot of the people being mentioned as the architects of a fascist administration have ties to Russia.
posted by mumimor at 1:52 AM on December 4, 2023 [21 favorites]
Yes, an argument could be made that Trump is a candidate because the political establishment are not doing their jobs. That's fair enough. But I don't see that applying to Biden, in spite of his life-long establishment ties: he is doing a lot. Those who want him to rule through EOs are basically asking for a dictator from the left, which is a legitimate position, but not a democratic position. If you want a free and open democracy, you have to accept the fact that there are other citizens and they have different positions from yours.
One of the things that must be frustrating for all politicians is that if something happens on your watch, you own it, regardless of why it happened. The current Supreme Court is Trump's work. The situation in the Middle East is Trump's work. The situation in Ukraine is Trump's work. (The reverse happens too: Trump couldn't end The Affordable Care Act, for instance).
Now to pivot back to the OP: shouldn't there be some sort of discussion about how Trumpism has its roots in Russian interference? It's like because we never got to read the Müller report, it didn't happen, in spite of several people being convicted of crimes related to Russian interference in an American election.
Obviously, Trump has a huge American base, made out of real people who are idiots. But a lot of the misinformation they believe in has its roots in Russia, and a lot of the people being mentioned as the architects of a fascist administration have ties to Russia.
posted by mumimor at 1:52 AM on December 4, 2023 [21 favorites]
how does a post about the very real threat of a fascist take-over of the USA, about to happen next year, end up with a fight in the comments about how much Biden sucks?
I think it's reasonable for this to have two responses
1) what are we going to do?
2) what are other people going to do? What should they do?
And the Biden criticism falls into #2. For those of us who are worried he can't beat Trump, we are frustrated that it seems like he won't recognize the crisis, and either become more electable, or get out of the way for someone who would be more electable. I recognize the criticism that asking for rule-by-EOs is asking for a left-dictator, but I think that's also an easy out - I think that the answer above is much more plausible, that the majority of the Democratic voting base just isn't where the organizing base is at, and Biden recognizes that. That is, however, also a problem - because it translates to a lack of enthusiasm on the ground. Even if people think they're trying their best, it's always harder to fight for someone you're unenthused about.
And I think we need to be honest that Biden is starting to show age related memory issues. I'm very sympathetic, and I don't think it means he's not smart. I love people who are starting to have memory issues, age-related or not, and they're often incredibly sharp and savvy. But the lack of memory does hamper them, and I think it's reasonable that people have concerns about it, especially when we're going into what seems like a fight for our very existence.
I'm not going to comment on Metafilter what I think the most likely recipe for a Democratic win is, because while I have no intentions of implementing it, I also don't want a door-knock from the Secret Service. But I think there are other paths to Democratic wins that involve people being willing to step back from egos and let other people lead, and I continue to be frustrated that they aren't being chosen. All that policy expertise and relationships and other good things? Can still be accomplished as an advisor to the president. You don't need to be the guy in charge to be in the think tank.
posted by corb at 3:07 AM on December 4, 2023 [10 favorites]
I think it's reasonable for this to have two responses
1) what are we going to do?
2) what are other people going to do? What should they do?
And the Biden criticism falls into #2. For those of us who are worried he can't beat Trump, we are frustrated that it seems like he won't recognize the crisis, and either become more electable, or get out of the way for someone who would be more electable. I recognize the criticism that asking for rule-by-EOs is asking for a left-dictator, but I think that's also an easy out - I think that the answer above is much more plausible, that the majority of the Democratic voting base just isn't where the organizing base is at, and Biden recognizes that. That is, however, also a problem - because it translates to a lack of enthusiasm on the ground. Even if people think they're trying their best, it's always harder to fight for someone you're unenthused about.
And I think we need to be honest that Biden is starting to show age related memory issues. I'm very sympathetic, and I don't think it means he's not smart. I love people who are starting to have memory issues, age-related or not, and they're often incredibly sharp and savvy. But the lack of memory does hamper them, and I think it's reasonable that people have concerns about it, especially when we're going into what seems like a fight for our very existence.
I'm not going to comment on Metafilter what I think the most likely recipe for a Democratic win is, because while I have no intentions of implementing it, I also don't want a door-knock from the Secret Service. But I think there are other paths to Democratic wins that involve people being willing to step back from egos and let other people lead, and I continue to be frustrated that they aren't being chosen. All that policy expertise and relationships and other good things? Can still be accomplished as an advisor to the president. You don't need to be the guy in charge to be in the think tank.
posted by corb at 3:07 AM on December 4, 2023 [10 favorites]
how does a post about the very real threat of a fascist take-over of the USA, about to happen next year, end up with a fight in the comments about how much Biden sucks?
It turns out that Biden is actually President of the United States right now. In that role he has considerable power to shape current and future events. Biden is in power and is asking to stay in power. A good way to demonstarte that one will be responsive to their constituents while in office in the future is to be responsive to their constituents while currently in power. We can debate whether he is doing that - who are his constituents and what does it look like to be “responsive” to them. But it is completely valid to demand that someone in power do what we want them to do in order to stay in power.
posted by ohneat at 7:29 AM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
It turns out that Biden is actually President of the United States right now. In that role he has considerable power to shape current and future events. Biden is in power and is asking to stay in power. A good way to demonstarte that one will be responsive to their constituents while in office in the future is to be responsive to their constituents while currently in power. We can debate whether he is doing that - who are his constituents and what does it look like to be “responsive” to them. But it is completely valid to demand that someone in power do what we want them to do in order to stay in power.
posted by ohneat at 7:29 AM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
how does a post about the very real threat of a fascist take-over of the USA, about to happen next year, end up with a fight in the comments about how much Biden sucks?
It's also his justice department that didn't nail all these jerks to the wall - we're relying on the states to do what should have been done at the Federal Level. This is pretty much my only complaint with Biden. I recognize all the acceptable things he has done.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:37 AM on December 4, 2023 [7 favorites]
It's also his justice department that didn't nail all these jerks to the wall - we're relying on the states to do what should have been done at the Federal Level. This is pretty much my only complaint with Biden. I recognize all the acceptable things he has done.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:37 AM on December 4, 2023 [7 favorites]
We defeated Trump in 2020. It was much more of a nail-biter than it should have been, but we did it and Democrats took both the House and (effectively) the Senate. Trump then tried to overthrow those election results, attempted a violent coup that very nearly toppled the government, and for good measure on his way out pocketed extremely sensitive state nuclear secrets and refused to return them when he was quietly asked to do so.
....and despite all that, he's still just one election away from returning to the White House, weaponizing the Justice Department, installing loyalists into every department, and completely toppling democracy as we know it?
I know this is the hand that we've been dealt, but for fuck's sake, if Trump returns to power, it's not going to be the fault a bunch of dissatisfied voters. At the very least, we had the chance to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and a couple of assholes who have way more power and influence than the average voter (because they're fucking Senators) thought preserving the filibuster was more important than saving democracy.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:05 AM on December 4, 2023 [18 favorites]
....and despite all that, he's still just one election away from returning to the White House, weaponizing the Justice Department, installing loyalists into every department, and completely toppling democracy as we know it?
I know this is the hand that we've been dealt, but for fuck's sake, if Trump returns to power, it's not going to be the fault a bunch of dissatisfied voters. At the very least, we had the chance to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and a couple of assholes who have way more power and influence than the average voter (because they're fucking Senators) thought preserving the filibuster was more important than saving democracy.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:05 AM on December 4, 2023 [18 favorites]
thought preserving the filibuster
Not even preserving the filibuster, preserving the no-effort filibuster. The filibuster would still have continued, people would have just had to make Mr. Smith Goes To Washington speeches in order to maintain it. Which I think is an eminently fair request. If you think a bill is so absolutely odious that you want to hold it up as a minority party, then by god you ought to be able to get up there and speechify as to why.
posted by corb at 8:28 AM on December 4, 2023 [20 favorites]
Not even preserving the filibuster, preserving the no-effort filibuster. The filibuster would still have continued, people would have just had to make Mr. Smith Goes To Washington speeches in order to maintain it. Which I think is an eminently fair request. If you think a bill is so absolutely odious that you want to hold it up as a minority party, then by god you ought to be able to get up there and speechify as to why.
posted by corb at 8:28 AM on December 4, 2023 [20 favorites]
The most aggravating thing about Biden's domestic agenda hasn't been the lack of ambition but rather how easily it was stopped in it's tracks.
Democrats had an ambitious, unprecedented, game-changing agenda lined up, but two Senators said "No" (after months of disingenuous negotiations) and that was it.
You want to complain about people voting their conscience instead of putting the nation first? Start with those two.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:34 AM on December 4, 2023 [11 favorites]
Democrats had an ambitious, unprecedented, game-changing agenda lined up, but two Senators said "No" (after months of disingenuous negotiations) and that was it.
You want to complain about people voting their conscience instead of putting the nation first? Start with those two.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:34 AM on December 4, 2023 [11 favorites]
Significant impediments to the Biden administration seem to reside in down-ticket elections, starting at the level of the Senate (for some policy issues) and the House (for controlling what gets to the floor for a vote). Even a Presidential veto doesn't carry much weight in such an atmosphere. Farther down, state legislators create imbalances in voter demographics and control gerrymandering. Red states effectively coordinate GOP policy objectives to the extent that Democrats have trouble establishing enough of a majority to realize their (regional) objectives.
Upthread comments indicate that we don't wish to be ruled by a dictator, even if he is our dictator. I couldn't agree more. I also agree that Biden is dedicated to working within the rules, even when those rules represent established customs if not laws. Other commenters have pointed out that individuals working at local levels--even if they only put up signs in their yards--may influence voters to abandon their notions to not vote for either Biden or Trump (because of whatever).
Is it possible that the internet can inspire an effective flash mob? I don't suppose even for a moment that a Biden victory would fix the various weaknesses of our system, but if it will stave off what seems to be an onrushing disaster, I'm all for it. Anyhow, I don't agree with certain things the Biden administration has done--this administration doesn't function entirely at the whim of the GOP tide. But I would support him rather than anybody the GOP could select to run against him.
posted by mule98J at 9:07 AM on December 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Upthread comments indicate that we don't wish to be ruled by a dictator, even if he is our dictator. I couldn't agree more. I also agree that Biden is dedicated to working within the rules, even when those rules represent established customs if not laws. Other commenters have pointed out that individuals working at local levels--even if they only put up signs in their yards--may influence voters to abandon their notions to not vote for either Biden or Trump (because of whatever).
Is it possible that the internet can inspire an effective flash mob? I don't suppose even for a moment that a Biden victory would fix the various weaknesses of our system, but if it will stave off what seems to be an onrushing disaster, I'm all for it. Anyhow, I don't agree with certain things the Biden administration has done--this administration doesn't function entirely at the whim of the GOP tide. But I would support him rather than anybody the GOP could select to run against him.
posted by mule98J at 9:07 AM on December 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
how does a post about the very real threat of a fascist take-over of the USA, about to happen next year, end up with a fight in the comments about how much Biden sucks?
The reason for all the screaming is that in 2020, with Trump's excesses fresh in the minds of America and COVID going full blast and Biden being more of a memory of decent times under Obama than a known quantity as POTUS, Biden won by a substantial margin... just like Hillary won by a substantial margin, neither of which mattered when the actual votes were tallied. Thanks to the Electoral College being what it is, Biden's actual margin of victory was a lot closer to under 100,000 spread across a handful of states than over seven million.
There is no reason for anyone in the wobbly middle to believe that Trump has changed, that he'll be more rational this time around, or that there is any reason to support him in 2024 for which they did not already reject him in 2020. That's the comforting part.
The problem is, this time around Trump isn't the incumbent. Biden is, and by several metrics of public opinion, he is struggling. It is not the notion that Muslim voters in crucial purple states, to name one timely example, will decide that Trump is a far better option and vote for him; it is the notion that they will view this as "Terrible things happen if I vote for either of these bozos" and stay home. THAT can flip swing states. THAT needs to be addressed, because it is not going away. And, yes, THAT is a tightrope that needs to be navigated carefully because swinging dramatically the other way could alienate many more than it brings back in, but its impact on BOTH sides of the dilemma needs consideration.
One reason that I got sensitive upthread is that I've witnessed many a social media dogpile over this exact issue. Mehdi Hasan, for one, recently commented upon the anger that he had witnessed personally amongst friends, family and fellow Muslims over America's Gaza policy. His reward was for hordes to parachute in and call him a Trump-lover, pro-Hamas, pro-terrorism, "actively working to get Trump elected" and such... not from Fox News types, but largely from the self-identifying center-left. Not because he was describing Trump in any way as a palatable alternative to Biden, or suggesting in any way that Trump would not be an absolute nightmare governing over the same situation, but because he was passing on how others currently feel about Biden.
We are better than that here, and that is not in question.
But if there is one lesson to take from 2016 (and my merely mentioning that election is setting off klaxons somewhere in the depths of MeFi HQ), it is that if there are rumblings happening in normally-blue states, they need to be addressed in one way or another. "They'll come around and vote for me in the end, because the alternative is awful" is a great way to end up with a lot of unused fireworks on election night.
posted by delfin at 9:31 AM on December 4, 2023 [8 favorites]
The reason for all the screaming is that in 2020, with Trump's excesses fresh in the minds of America and COVID going full blast and Biden being more of a memory of decent times under Obama than a known quantity as POTUS, Biden won by a substantial margin... just like Hillary won by a substantial margin, neither of which mattered when the actual votes were tallied. Thanks to the Electoral College being what it is, Biden's actual margin of victory was a lot closer to under 100,000 spread across a handful of states than over seven million.
There is no reason for anyone in the wobbly middle to believe that Trump has changed, that he'll be more rational this time around, or that there is any reason to support him in 2024 for which they did not already reject him in 2020. That's the comforting part.
The problem is, this time around Trump isn't the incumbent. Biden is, and by several metrics of public opinion, he is struggling. It is not the notion that Muslim voters in crucial purple states, to name one timely example, will decide that Trump is a far better option and vote for him; it is the notion that they will view this as "Terrible things happen if I vote for either of these bozos" and stay home. THAT can flip swing states. THAT needs to be addressed, because it is not going away. And, yes, THAT is a tightrope that needs to be navigated carefully because swinging dramatically the other way could alienate many more than it brings back in, but its impact on BOTH sides of the dilemma needs consideration.
One reason that I got sensitive upthread is that I've witnessed many a social media dogpile over this exact issue. Mehdi Hasan, for one, recently commented upon the anger that he had witnessed personally amongst friends, family and fellow Muslims over America's Gaza policy. His reward was for hordes to parachute in and call him a Trump-lover, pro-Hamas, pro-terrorism, "actively working to get Trump elected" and such... not from Fox News types, but largely from the self-identifying center-left. Not because he was describing Trump in any way as a palatable alternative to Biden, or suggesting in any way that Trump would not be an absolute nightmare governing over the same situation, but because he was passing on how others currently feel about Biden.
We are better than that here, and that is not in question.
But if there is one lesson to take from 2016 (and my merely mentioning that election is setting off klaxons somewhere in the depths of MeFi HQ), it is that if there are rumblings happening in normally-blue states, they need to be addressed in one way or another. "They'll come around and vote for me in the end, because the alternative is awful" is a great way to end up with a lot of unused fireworks on election night.
posted by delfin at 9:31 AM on December 4, 2023 [8 favorites]
Mehdi Hasan, of course, whose MSNBC show was subsequently and disgustingly canceled.
posted by Gadarene at 9:36 AM on December 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by Gadarene at 9:36 AM on December 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
Ok, who's exciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiited by this preview of the upcoming 2024 election megathreads?
There's probably not much we can do to avoid the common derails like we have above, but maybe we can clarify in our comments whether we are talking about stuff like (top of my head)
1) Within the current political system, where Biden and Trump are the likely nominees, what can Biden do to win?
2) In a world where it's not these two, who do we wish was running? What's good about that person? And maybe, what could Biden learn from that person?
3) What can we do to improve things within the current system (better communication, work to reduce the role of disinformation, candidate for every election, etc)?
4) How can we break the 2-party stranglehold?
5) What's bad about the current system and how can we improve it?
6) How can we replace the system with something better (revolution, new constitution, etc.)?
7)Why is America bad and/or why are we all doomed anyway?
So to me this thread is mostly about #1, with a bit of #7 thrown in.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:59 AM on December 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
There's probably not much we can do to avoid the common derails like we have above, but maybe we can clarify in our comments whether we are talking about stuff like (top of my head)
1) Within the current political system, where Biden and Trump are the likely nominees, what can Biden do to win?
2) In a world where it's not these two, who do we wish was running? What's good about that person? And maybe, what could Biden learn from that person?
3) What can we do to improve things within the current system (better communication, work to reduce the role of disinformation, candidate for every election, etc)?
4) How can we break the 2-party stranglehold?
5) What's bad about the current system and how can we improve it?
6) How can we replace the system with something better (revolution, new constitution, etc.)?
7)Why is America bad and/or why are we all doomed anyway?
So to me this thread is mostly about #1, with a bit of #7 thrown in.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:59 AM on December 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
I know this is the hand that we've been dealt, but for fuck's sake, if Trump returns to power, it's not going to be the fault a bunch of dissatisfied voters.
Yes indeed. If Trump wins the election in 2024, the only thing history will remember Biden for is fiddling while Rome burned. He either doesn't realize this or doesn't care. I'm not sure which is worse.
Remember, the Supreme Court kept striking down FDR's agenda until he seriously moved to pack the court and then suddenly they backed down.
I don't really see any of that from Biden.
posted by rhymedirective at 10:12 AM on December 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
Yes indeed. If Trump wins the election in 2024, the only thing history will remember Biden for is fiddling while Rome burned. He either doesn't realize this or doesn't care. I'm not sure which is worse.
Remember, the Supreme Court kept striking down FDR's agenda until he seriously moved to pack the court and then suddenly they backed down.
I don't really see any of that from Biden.
posted by rhymedirective at 10:12 AM on December 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
Also I highly recommend the Crooked Media podcasts Pod Save America (snarky and funny) and The Wilderness (serious research) for digging deeper into how to achieve the possible *within* the system, and for very good constructive criticism of Biden and Democrats from a place of love (hah). The Wilderness is less known but is a deep, deep dive into voter sentiments across the country and should be a lesson in humility for always online, over-educated MeFites about what drives people. How do we get those people onboard without an air of superiority?
For example, no one in this thread has mentioned "it's the economy, stupid" yet. If you're worried about Trump, this (plus messaging around it) is the focus. That's what people care about. Polls show that anytime Trump ventures into "big steal" territory, his ratings go down. Fewer people are focused on that than you think. Most people are not on Twitter. Most people have never heard Biden speak. Most Trumpists I know are mystified that "he disrespected disabled veterans" - they've never heard that. The average American is not thinking about the 2024 election AT ALL yet.
A good point from a recent PSA episode: Dems are messaging that the economy is good because of GDP or job gains, or because inflation is going down, and there's some elitist commentary out there suggesting that if these yokels got off TikTok and listened to us, they'd know that. FALSE. "Inflation is going down" can be translated as "things are getting worse at a slightly lower rate", right?
And to make matters worse, the average person hears "inflation" and thinks "prices". So if you say "inflation is going down" but prices are still high and getting a bit higher, they think "they said that *prices* are going down but things are still really expensive; therefore, Democrats are lying and cannot be trusted". Dems need to really grasp that when crafting messages.
posted by caviar2d2 at 10:27 AM on December 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
For example, no one in this thread has mentioned "it's the economy, stupid" yet. If you're worried about Trump, this (plus messaging around it) is the focus. That's what people care about. Polls show that anytime Trump ventures into "big steal" territory, his ratings go down. Fewer people are focused on that than you think. Most people are not on Twitter. Most people have never heard Biden speak. Most Trumpists I know are mystified that "he disrespected disabled veterans" - they've never heard that. The average American is not thinking about the 2024 election AT ALL yet.
A good point from a recent PSA episode: Dems are messaging that the economy is good because of GDP or job gains, or because inflation is going down, and there's some elitist commentary out there suggesting that if these yokels got off TikTok and listened to us, they'd know that. FALSE. "Inflation is going down" can be translated as "things are getting worse at a slightly lower rate", right?
And to make matters worse, the average person hears "inflation" and thinks "prices". So if you say "inflation is going down" but prices are still high and getting a bit higher, they think "they said that *prices* are going down but things are still really expensive; therefore, Democrats are lying and cannot be trusted". Dems need to really grasp that when crafting messages.
posted by caviar2d2 at 10:27 AM on December 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
For example, no one in this thread has mentioned "it's the economy, stupid" yet...The average American is not thinking about the 2024 election AT ALL yet.
What? You know that Presidential Primaries are going on right now? That's just completely untrue.
I think this post from the People's Policy Project makes a good point about the economy, but IMO it doesn't offer much in the way of prescriptive problems, just that whether 'the economy' is good or bad depends on who you are asking, and is also a proxy for how much people like the president.
My opinion:
From a Democratic perspective, the economy isn't great, because the lowest end of the economic spectrum's life has probably gotten a bit worse under Biden due to issues far beyond
his control, like the ending of the COVID payouts. And the measures to improve it have been blocked.
From a Republican standpoint, most of what they are wanting is price controls (how very socialist of them) for the products they buy and punishment for everyone else - like double everyone's student loans. Do you think they care if poor people's life has gotten worse or would enact policies to fix it?
But for the majority, the reality is that things are mostly in-line and just fine:
Black Friday set a record. To that end, can Biden 'message' his way to a positive record? No he cannot.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:49 AM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
What? You know that Presidential Primaries are going on right now? That's just completely untrue.
I think this post from the People's Policy Project makes a good point about the economy, but IMO it doesn't offer much in the way of prescriptive problems, just that whether 'the economy' is good or bad depends on who you are asking, and is also a proxy for how much people like the president.
My opinion:
From a Democratic perspective, the economy isn't great, because the lowest end of the economic spectrum's life has probably gotten a bit worse under Biden due to issues far beyond
his control, like the ending of the COVID payouts. And the measures to improve it have been blocked.
From a Republican standpoint, most of what they are wanting is price controls (how very socialist of them) for the products they buy and punishment for everyone else - like double everyone's student loans. Do you think they care if poor people's life has gotten worse or would enact policies to fix it?
But for the majority, the reality is that things are mostly in-line and just fine:
Black Friday set a record. To that end, can Biden 'message' his way to a positive record? No he cannot.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:49 AM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
4) How can we break the 2-party stranglehold?
We know the answer to this.
The first is a different voting system like IRV. This allows smaller parties to get a foot in the door.
The second is to build up "our" bench using local races and subsume the politics. Every position from dog catcher upwards to statehouses. Fight hard in the primaries, respect the process, come together in the general to at least stop the fascists from taking power. It utterly infuriates me how so many positions of legislative and party institutional power go unopposed. Statewide DNC members are elected in many states and they often run unopposed. Be an insurgent candidate there. Republican seat without an opponent? Just run someone. Run a ham fucking sandwich if you have to. Even if it's an unwinnable Don Quixote campaign. Don't blow any real money, just exist on the ballot and make them spend money on fighting you.
Coming out every four years and stamping our feet that "party politics is rigged" hasn't gone anywhere. But the people pulling the institutional strings? They by and large keep hold on that institutional power solely because nobody has bothered to challenge them and nobody cares otherwise.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:29 AM on December 4, 2023 [7 favorites]
We know the answer to this.
The first is a different voting system like IRV. This allows smaller parties to get a foot in the door.
The second is to build up "our" bench using local races and subsume the politics. Every position from dog catcher upwards to statehouses. Fight hard in the primaries, respect the process, come together in the general to at least stop the fascists from taking power. It utterly infuriates me how so many positions of legislative and party institutional power go unopposed. Statewide DNC members are elected in many states and they often run unopposed. Be an insurgent candidate there. Republican seat without an opponent? Just run someone. Run a ham fucking sandwich if you have to. Even if it's an unwinnable Don Quixote campaign. Don't blow any real money, just exist on the ballot and make them spend money on fighting you.
Coming out every four years and stamping our feet that "party politics is rigged" hasn't gone anywhere. But the people pulling the institutional strings? They by and large keep hold on that institutional power solely because nobody has bothered to challenge them and nobody cares otherwise.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:29 AM on December 4, 2023 [7 favorites]
I don't understand, given the spectrum of belief in our country how breaking the 2 party stranglehold would benefit left-of-center voters.
posted by Selena777 at 12:19 PM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 12:19 PM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
I don't understand, given the spectrum of belief in our country how breaking the 2 party stranglehold would benefit left-of-center voters.
Short answer: Coalition governments, baby!
Long answer: The United States doesn't actually have political parties, the United States has political coalitions that call themselves parties. All of the coalition-building that typically occurs in parliamentary systems (most of which occurs after an election where no party got a majority of seats in the legislature) happens before elections in the United States (also, first-past-the-post encourages 2 dominate political parties, so a parliamentary system is not a 100% fix. Witness the UK where the last two Labour leaders were Keir Starmer and... Jeffrey Corbyn.)
So you have to create a system whereby minority viewpoints can extract meaningful concessions in line with their elected power from the party that has a reasonable chance of controlling the House. The key way most elected democracies do this is by having multiparty systems.
Thus, it's much more likely that the Moderate Republican Party would join with the Neoliberal Party and the Progressive Party to enter into an agreement for House control, because the moderate Republicans have more in common with either of the other two that they do with the Fascist Party of America.
posted by rhymedirective at 12:34 PM on December 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
Short answer: Coalition governments, baby!
Long answer: The United States doesn't actually have political parties, the United States has political coalitions that call themselves parties. All of the coalition-building that typically occurs in parliamentary systems (most of which occurs after an election where no party got a majority of seats in the legislature) happens before elections in the United States (also, first-past-the-post encourages 2 dominate political parties, so a parliamentary system is not a 100% fix. Witness the UK where the last two Labour leaders were Keir Starmer and... Jeffrey Corbyn.)
So you have to create a system whereby minority viewpoints can extract meaningful concessions in line with their elected power from the party that has a reasonable chance of controlling the House. The key way most elected democracies do this is by having multiparty systems.
Thus, it's much more likely that the Moderate Republican Party would join with the Neoliberal Party and the Progressive Party to enter into an agreement for House control, because the moderate Republicans have more in common with either of the other two that they do with the Fascist Party of America.
posted by rhymedirective at 12:34 PM on December 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
Also so as not to abuse the edit window, a multiparty system also has another advantage in that it would make it nearly impossible for large numbers of fascists to cosplay as Republicans, because the party has many more controls over who gets to run for election on its platform and using its label.
The weak parties and the open primary system of the United States is kind of legitimately insane, to be honest.
posted by rhymedirective at 12:41 PM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
The weak parties and the open primary system of the United States is kind of legitimately insane, to be honest.
posted by rhymedirective at 12:41 PM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
For example, no one in this thread has mentioned "it's the economy, stupid" yet...The average American is not thinking about the 2024 election AT ALL yet.
What? You know that Presidential Primaries are going on right now? That's just completely untrue.
Probably I stated that too broadly. I had a hard time finding good stats here (I usually use Pew) but this is a non-profit that passes my first sniff test (anodyne bipartisan thing started by Christine Todd Whitman): Turnout in Primaries vs General Elections since 2000. So:
In U.S. elections since 2000, the average turnout rate for primary elections is 27% of registered voters. In contrast, the average turnout rate for general elections is 60.5% of registered voters. This means that, on average, more than half of general election voters do not vote in primary elections.
And I found this from Kaiser Family Foundation: Number of Voters and Voter Registration as a Share of the Voter Population (2020) showing that in 2020, 72.7% of people eligible to register were actually registered. So if my rough math is good and fudging years:
100 people eligible to register.
73 are registered (2020)
On average since 2000, 27% of registered voters vote in primaries, so 73 * 0.27 = 19.71.
So 20 out of 100 people who could be primary voters actually do it. And out of those 20, how many are constantly tracking issues, listening to speeches and commentary, etc. vs. just remembering to pop in last minute and keep that commie bastard Biden/that lunatic Trump from keeping/taking power? Maybe a quarter, being generous? So that's like 5 possible voters out of 100 who are focused on the election right now :-)
I could be wrong, but as I said above, there's a lot of "I have never heard part of a Biden speech" out there. Look at this thread even! People are asking what Biden has done.
The Biden-Harris Record (horse's mouth)
Presidency of Joe Biden (Wikipedia)
And as pointed out above, he's not a dictator. With a Republican-controlled House and ultra-biased Supreme Count, plus a privately funded avalanche of lawsuits on every little thing, it's going to be more limited that it would otherwise.
posted by caviar2d2 at 1:25 PM on December 4, 2023 [5 favorites]
What? You know that Presidential Primaries are going on right now? That's just completely untrue.
Probably I stated that too broadly. I had a hard time finding good stats here (I usually use Pew) but this is a non-profit that passes my first sniff test (anodyne bipartisan thing started by Christine Todd Whitman): Turnout in Primaries vs General Elections since 2000. So:
In U.S. elections since 2000, the average turnout rate for primary elections is 27% of registered voters. In contrast, the average turnout rate for general elections is 60.5% of registered voters. This means that, on average, more than half of general election voters do not vote in primary elections.
And I found this from Kaiser Family Foundation: Number of Voters and Voter Registration as a Share of the Voter Population (2020) showing that in 2020, 72.7% of people eligible to register were actually registered. So if my rough math is good and fudging years:
100 people eligible to register.
73 are registered (2020)
On average since 2000, 27% of registered voters vote in primaries, so 73 * 0.27 = 19.71.
So 20 out of 100 people who could be primary voters actually do it. And out of those 20, how many are constantly tracking issues, listening to speeches and commentary, etc. vs. just remembering to pop in last minute and keep that commie bastard Biden/that lunatic Trump from keeping/taking power? Maybe a quarter, being generous? So that's like 5 possible voters out of 100 who are focused on the election right now :-)
I could be wrong, but as I said above, there's a lot of "I have never heard part of a Biden speech" out there. Look at this thread even! People are asking what Biden has done.
The Biden-Harris Record (horse's mouth)
Presidency of Joe Biden (Wikipedia)
And as pointed out above, he's not a dictator. With a Republican-controlled House and ultra-biased Supreme Count, plus a privately funded avalanche of lawsuits on every little thing, it's going to be more limited that it would otherwise.
posted by caviar2d2 at 1:25 PM on December 4, 2023 [5 favorites]
In U.S. elections since 2000, the average turnout rate for primary elections is 27% of registered voters.
Voting in a primary election is not the same thing as being aware that primaries are underway. I generally don't vote in primaries because I don't care that much about the inner workings of political processes nor do I feel the need to obsess over very minor differences in candidates especially when the number that actually make it into law is very small, not because I'm not aware of them.
Also most presidential speeches are terrible and full of platitudes. Why would anyone listen to them? It's like going to a meeting with your company CEO, except worse. I think most people in this thread are aware what Biden has done.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:46 PM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
Voting in a primary election is not the same thing as being aware that primaries are underway. I generally don't vote in primaries because I don't care that much about the inner workings of political processes nor do I feel the need to obsess over very minor differences in candidates especially when the number that actually make it into law is very small, not because I'm not aware of them.
Also most presidential speeches are terrible and full of platitudes. Why would anyone listen to them? It's like going to a meeting with your company CEO, except worse. I think most people in this thread are aware what Biden has done.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:46 PM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
for the majority, the reality is that things are mostly in-line and just fine:
Black Friday set a record.
That's...not a good sign and doesn't actually mean things are mostly in-line and just fine. I agree that most people are going to be voting based on the economy and that's why I think that we're more in trouble now than we were in 2020.
I haven't bought things on Black Friday pretty much ever. I did this year - because I wasn't confident of my ability to buy Christmas presents at undiscounted prices without it. Last year my Christmas shopping was more about 'ooh, how can I make people happy'. This year, it's about 'How can I make people happiest for the absolute least amount of money?'.
Rent is up. Mortgages are up. Gas is up. Food prices are up. And that's how people who aren't policy wonks measure the economy - by how pinched they feel. Some of these have nothing to do with the president, but many of them could have been impacted by action. For middle class folks, it's things like:
- were they able to take their kids back-to-school shopping for new clothes, once a cherished ritual?
And this isn't new shit - bringing it back to the creeping tide of fascism, this is how the fascists always get people on board. They take economic downturns that aren't being handled well, or inflation, and they promise that they're going to fix it.
posted by corb at 1:50 PM on December 4, 2023 [9 favorites]
Black Friday set a record.
That's...not a good sign and doesn't actually mean things are mostly in-line and just fine. I agree that most people are going to be voting based on the economy and that's why I think that we're more in trouble now than we were in 2020.
I haven't bought things on Black Friday pretty much ever. I did this year - because I wasn't confident of my ability to buy Christmas presents at undiscounted prices without it. Last year my Christmas shopping was more about 'ooh, how can I make people happy'. This year, it's about 'How can I make people happiest for the absolute least amount of money?'.
Rent is up. Mortgages are up. Gas is up. Food prices are up. And that's how people who aren't policy wonks measure the economy - by how pinched they feel. Some of these have nothing to do with the president, but many of them could have been impacted by action. For middle class folks, it's things like:
- were they able to take their kids back-to-school shopping for new clothes, once a cherished ritual?
- new clothing has risen from 4-20% over the last year depending on fabric- Were they able to take their family on vacation?
- hotel prices are up 54%Were they able to take their wife out to dinner 'just because' without looking at their bank account first?
- airlines began charging 30$ for the first checked bag starting in 2019, just before Biden took office.
- and airline ticket prices are now up 25%
- restaurant prices had highest spike in 40 years andThese are all things people in that income bracket used to be able to do without thinking about it too hard. Now they can't. And yes, some of that has been slowly getting worse over a great deal of time, but it can't be denied that it has rapidly accelerated over the past few years. And in part, that's because of things in the world that Biden isn't eager to link to their causes - such as the war in Ukraine. The reason why energy prices are up, why a lot of food prices are up? Is because there's a major disruptive war on that's causing huge disruptions of supply and costs. But we don't talk about that, because Biden frankly isn't sure that the American public has enough of a taste for that war even without mentioning the price the American people are paying for it.
- those costs have been rising over the past few years and continue to rise
And this isn't new shit - bringing it back to the creeping tide of fascism, this is how the fascists always get people on board. They take economic downturns that aren't being handled well, or inflation, and they promise that they're going to fix it.
posted by corb at 1:50 PM on December 4, 2023 [9 favorites]
The Atlantic has a new special issue: If Trump Wins, focusing on the specific policies that a second term would bring. Spoiler alert: "Trump’s second term, they conclude, would be much worse."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 2:17 PM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 2:17 PM on December 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
>> The average American is not thinking about the 2024 election AT ALL yet.
> What? You know that Presidential Primaries are going on right now?
The Average American does not vote in primaries. Primary voters trend towards the extremes of each party. That's why they're such a problem when combined with safe seats where whoever wins the primary wins the general. That's how you get wackos getting elected, and that's specifically why part of the confidence and supply agreement Gaetz wanted from McCarthy included a promise not to interfere in primary elections in Freedom Causus districts.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 2:57 PM on December 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
> What? You know that Presidential Primaries are going on right now?
The Average American does not vote in primaries. Primary voters trend towards the extremes of each party. That's why they're such a problem when combined with safe seats where whoever wins the primary wins the general. That's how you get wackos getting elected, and that's specifically why part of the confidence and supply agreement Gaetz wanted from McCarthy included a promise not to interfere in primary elections in Freedom Causus districts.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 2:57 PM on December 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
So, I have no idea whether this will make an iota of difference, but today I sent my first email to the editor of a major news outlet asking them to include Trump's history of rape when describing him - I linked the story and quoted their description of the 90-plus criminal charges he faces, then said:
"As you undoubtedly know, a jury found Mr. Trump responsible for raping journalist E. Jean Carroll, a finding that was confirmed by Judge Kaplan in July.
I request that, going forward, you include that finding when describing the candidate. Readers have a right to know, and his crime should not be overlooked."
I do think it's important for anyone contemplating voting from him to own the fact that they're voting for a rapist - and I think it's important for the press to point out that a jury has already found him guilty.
(Yeah yeah yeah hair-splitting over "rape" vs. "sexual assault," but that's the point of the Kaplan reference, and even if the media notes he's guilty of sexual assault, that's still better than nothing.)
I mean, I would be very glad if voters rejected him for his criminal attempts to overthrow the government, but any reason at all for a no vote is fine by me ... and I know at least one older woman who likes Trump but who would be very uncomfortable to be reminded that he's a rapist.
posted by kristi at 7:05 PM on December 4, 2023 [14 favorites]
"As you undoubtedly know, a jury found Mr. Trump responsible for raping journalist E. Jean Carroll, a finding that was confirmed by Judge Kaplan in July.
I request that, going forward, you include that finding when describing the candidate. Readers have a right to know, and his crime should not be overlooked."
I do think it's important for anyone contemplating voting from him to own the fact that they're voting for a rapist - and I think it's important for the press to point out that a jury has already found him guilty.
(Yeah yeah yeah hair-splitting over "rape" vs. "sexual assault," but that's the point of the Kaplan reference, and even if the media notes he's guilty of sexual assault, that's still better than nothing.)
I mean, I would be very glad if voters rejected him for his criminal attempts to overthrow the government, but any reason at all for a no vote is fine by me ... and I know at least one older woman who likes Trump but who would be very uncomfortable to be reminded that he's a rapist.
posted by kristi at 7:05 PM on December 4, 2023 [14 favorites]
Trump Promotes Alarming Washington Post Column Warning His Presidency Would Be a ‘Dictatorship’
Former President Donald Trump on Monday shared a Washington Post column warning about the increasing “inevitability” of a “Trump dictatorship.”posted by OnceUponATime at 7:50 PM on December 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
The leading GOP candidate for president shared the article on Truth Social when he “retruthed” a post from Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL).
From the linked article:
posted by dg at 8:32 PM on December 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
Trump’s apparent embrace of the article seems to be his latest explicit acknowledgment that he is done with the guardrails, checks and balances, and other democratic institutions that restrain the powers of the American presidency.This ignores the simplest and most likely reason he did this - he doesn't know the difference between the US President and a dictator.
posted by dg at 8:32 PM on December 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
It's easy to imagine how to push through reforms that would be great when you're in power, but there's a good reason it's hard to make changes like this. The reason is that democracy only functions when people are able to rule and be ruled in turn. You have to be able to peacefully give up power to the opposition party, and not have them be able to completely rearrange things the same way you did.
The democratic norms are designed to limit the harm that can be caused, but by doing so they also limit the good. We know there are people who would love to overturn all these norms, and the worst thing we could possibly do to empower them is to be the ones to do it first. Once you throw out those norms to push through reform, you may never give up power again to the Bad Guys, and democracy is dead by our own hand.
posted by I-Write-Essays
This squared.
Don't claim any power, right, means, advantage, that you don't want your enemy to have. Especially in a democracy.
––––––––
I think it is inaccurate and insufficient to describe Trump as an autocrat, authoritarian, or fascist.
I mean, he is all that. But what he really is, above all else, is a tyrant, and a very petty one. Which is, by far, the worst possible kind of person to have in charge of anything.
The words tyrant and tyranny need to be used a lot more for Trump and his style, and more than a few of his acolytes and enablers.
posted by Pouteria at 2:39 AM on December 5, 2023 [8 favorites]
The democratic norms are designed to limit the harm that can be caused, but by doing so they also limit the good. We know there are people who would love to overturn all these norms, and the worst thing we could possibly do to empower them is to be the ones to do it first. Once you throw out those norms to push through reform, you may never give up power again to the Bad Guys, and democracy is dead by our own hand.
posted by I-Write-Essays
This squared.
Don't claim any power, right, means, advantage, that you don't want your enemy to have. Especially in a democracy.
––––––––
I think it is inaccurate and insufficient to describe Trump as an autocrat, authoritarian, or fascist.
I mean, he is all that. But what he really is, above all else, is a tyrant, and a very petty one. Which is, by far, the worst possible kind of person to have in charge of anything.
The words tyrant and tyranny need to be used a lot more for Trump and his style, and more than a few of his acolytes and enablers.
posted by Pouteria at 2:39 AM on December 5, 2023 [8 favorites]
I really do not think you can understate the "a vote for Bart is a vote for anarchy"ness of clutching one's pearls and declaring Donald Trump a "dictator" or "tyrant." That's the kind of PR shit this dude lives for.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:49 AM on December 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:49 AM on December 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Overstate, whatever. It's too early.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:20 AM on December 5, 2023
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:20 AM on December 5, 2023
“Authoritarianism, Dehumanization, and the Fight Ahead,” Kelly Hayes, Organizing My Thoughts, 05 December 2023
"It's so important that folks stick together and recognize each other's struggles as a unified struggle," says author Sarah Kendzior.posted by ob1quixote at 6:45 AM on December 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
Don't claim any power, right, means, advantage, that you don't want your enemy to have. Especially in a democracy.
So Republicans should think twice about violating norms lest they give Democrats an advantage, right? Because if you apply that logic to them...
Norms are important. Laws are also important. But can someone in the Democratic party leadership please find some way of addressing/responding to Mitch McConnell's Supreme Court grab? Because that's ultimately what all this snark about norms is about. There was an opportunity to tip the balance on the Supreme Court and McConnell pulled an unprecedented "one weird trick" which violated all the norms and everyone just sat around doing nothing while he did it. That's the origin of the "Democrats are weak because they follow norms" complaint. No one wants to see that happen again.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:48 AM on December 5, 2023 [12 favorites]
So Republicans should think twice about violating norms lest they give Democrats an advantage, right? Because if you apply that logic to them...
Norms are important. Laws are also important. But can someone in the Democratic party leadership please find some way of addressing/responding to Mitch McConnell's Supreme Court grab? Because that's ultimately what all this snark about norms is about. There was an opportunity to tip the balance on the Supreme Court and McConnell pulled an unprecedented "one weird trick" which violated all the norms and everyone just sat around doing nothing while he did it. That's the origin of the "Democrats are weak because they follow norms" complaint. No one wants to see that happen again.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:48 AM on December 5, 2023 [12 favorites]
> So Republicans should think twice about violating norms lest they give Democrats an advantage, right? Because if you apply that logic to them...
This happened in the Senate the other day when Durbin forced a vote on judicial nominations without allowing further debate, and citing the precedent set by his Republican predecessor.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:19 AM on December 5, 2023 [15 favorites]
This happened in the Senate the other day when Durbin forced a vote on judicial nominations without allowing further debate, and citing the precedent set by his Republican predecessor.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:19 AM on December 5, 2023 [15 favorites]
So, the real reason Biden hasn't done more isn't because it's actually impossible, it's because he doesn't want to, because he and the part of his base he cares about are a bunch of paranoid racists who want more police and imperial violence and everyone to go back to being God-Fearing Christians.
I was trying to show people that the largest bloc of Dem voters -- which contains the most Black voters -- strongly supports Dem politicians like Biden... and the retort is that they're "a bunch of paranoid racists who want more police and imperial violence," yada yada yada.
This is why I say the left doesn't understand its own relatively marginal position in the Democratic voter coalition. There seem to be so many people on the left who fancy themselves advocates for the dispossessed -- including, especially, Black people -- who, when confronted with facts about what actual Black voters think, believe, and vote for, simply refused to see what's right in front of them.
These are the same folks I mentioned previously who, rather than accept that most Black voters didn't like Sanders, and take that fact on board, took refuge in conspiracy theories about the DNC.
It's awfully convenient to consider oneself a zealous champion of a marginalized group, and to be outspoken about what you think that group wants and needs, but not take any interest in what that group actually says it wants, and who it votes for.
Obviously there is a wide diversity of opinions in the Black community, as in any community. But Biden won Black voters by overwhelming margins in the 2020 primaries. If he were the old, out-of-touch, prison-industrial-complex-loving, neo-Jim-Crow racist caricature that leftists often make him out to be, then how the hell did that happen? Answer: He's not anything like that caricature. (Alternately, one could choose to believe that all those pro-Biden Black voters are dupes and idiots. Which wouldn't say much for one's supposed advocacy for them.)
Part of a serious commitment to democracy means accepting when your views, your candidates, etc. do not prevail, particularly within your own coalition, and trying to understand why that happened. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, well, you may be committed to a set of policies, but you're not much interested in democracy. Or in, well, learning stuff, taking new information on board, and changing your mind.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:50 AM on December 5, 2023 [16 favorites]
I was trying to show people that the largest bloc of Dem voters -- which contains the most Black voters -- strongly supports Dem politicians like Biden... and the retort is that they're "a bunch of paranoid racists who want more police and imperial violence," yada yada yada.
This is why I say the left doesn't understand its own relatively marginal position in the Democratic voter coalition. There seem to be so many people on the left who fancy themselves advocates for the dispossessed -- including, especially, Black people -- who, when confronted with facts about what actual Black voters think, believe, and vote for, simply refused to see what's right in front of them.
These are the same folks I mentioned previously who, rather than accept that most Black voters didn't like Sanders, and take that fact on board, took refuge in conspiracy theories about the DNC.
It's awfully convenient to consider oneself a zealous champion of a marginalized group, and to be outspoken about what you think that group wants and needs, but not take any interest in what that group actually says it wants, and who it votes for.
Obviously there is a wide diversity of opinions in the Black community, as in any community. But Biden won Black voters by overwhelming margins in the 2020 primaries. If he were the old, out-of-touch, prison-industrial-complex-loving, neo-Jim-Crow racist caricature that leftists often make him out to be, then how the hell did that happen? Answer: He's not anything like that caricature. (Alternately, one could choose to believe that all those pro-Biden Black voters are dupes and idiots. Which wouldn't say much for one's supposed advocacy for them.)
Part of a serious commitment to democracy means accepting when your views, your candidates, etc. do not prevail, particularly within your own coalition, and trying to understand why that happened. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, well, you may be committed to a set of policies, but you're not much interested in democracy. Or in, well, learning stuff, taking new information on board, and changing your mind.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:50 AM on December 5, 2023 [16 favorites]
The real question is what actually happened on 1/6.
Did Trump falter at the last moment and fail to (attempt to) overthrow the US govenrment, kill Congress, and put himself in place as a dictator due to failure of will and cowardice? Or perhaps just a failure on his part and the part of the Republicans to realize it actually was a possibility?
Or
Does the Republican Party actually have a core of belief in democracy that is not as strong as we might like but which means they genuinely don't support dictatorship?
If it's the latter then we don't have to worry (much) about demoracy failing and America becoming a dictatorship. They might like to nibble at the edges of democracy, suppress votes, and so on but there is an essential pro-democracy line they will not cross and while we might lose civil rights and so on there remains the possibility of us retaking taking the government through elections one day and doing as we think is right.
That's the calculus that the Demorats, and the country as a whole, went through in January of 2000. Should Gore have balked at the Supreme Court stealing his victory and giving the Presidency to Junior? Risking a civil war in the process?
They decided it was best to avoid civil war, always a chancy thing, take a loss, and hold firm in their faith that while the Reepublicans might cheat when things are close, they don't actually want to completely end democracy.
And they were correct in that.
Now we're facing much the same question. When it gets to essentials, will the Republican Party and its voters abandon democracy entirely or merely steal an election here and there when they can?
That option is far from good, but you can make a good case it isn't grounds for starting up a civil war.
I think what worries most of us is the thought that 1/6 and the entire leadup to it, and then the entire aftermath, showed people who don't actually believe in democracy that they really could get rid of it.
If a couple of Republican governors had pulled shit with their EC votes it could even have gone for Trump "legally" via a contengent election. All it would take, in theory, is one Republican governor willing to take the risk who will declare his state's ballots are invalid and the election was compromised and in theory that would trigger the contengent elections clause.
In 2020 none of them were willing to do that. Now they've had four years of their base saying they would have backed them if they did, and I suspect that in 2024 we might see it happen.
Then there was that moment we teetered on the edge on 1/6 when an actual violent mob entered the capitol intent on murdering Congress and gimposing dictatorship. If Trump had pushed harder I think they would have carried through instead of fizzling out.
And I think that's what Trump believes too. He's not going to make that mistake again. If he has a mob ready to roll in and try a violent overthrow he'll push it. We're better off for 2024 in that at least he isn't in a position to stand down police and national guards. But the police are always outnumbered by the public, if it comes to it the Trumpers could storm the capitol if they chose.
Artifice_Eternity IIRC most Black voters said they favored Biden on the basis that they believed he was most likely to win against Trump not so much due to any belief that he was an especially great person or good on race.
I agree that the Sanders folks went for conspiracy crap rather than accepting that their dude from a microscopic all white state might not actually be all that appealing to Black voters. I think also Sanders has a hard time really comprehending that he was trying for a national role rather than campaigning among a bunch of white Vermonters.
But
This is why I say the left doesn't understand its own relatively marginal position in the Democratic voter coalition
Yeah? Then stop telling us its our fault when your center right neolib candidates lose. Either we matter, in which case we are owed a place at the table and a say in things, or we don't matter in which case we aren't to blame when your people lose.
You can't have it both ways. So which is it? Do we matter and deserve a voice? Or are we irrelevant and you don't need our votes?
posted by sotonohito at 12:25 PM on December 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
Did Trump falter at the last moment and fail to (attempt to) overthrow the US govenrment, kill Congress, and put himself in place as a dictator due to failure of will and cowardice? Or perhaps just a failure on his part and the part of the Republicans to realize it actually was a possibility?
Or
Does the Republican Party actually have a core of belief in democracy that is not as strong as we might like but which means they genuinely don't support dictatorship?
If it's the latter then we don't have to worry (much) about demoracy failing and America becoming a dictatorship. They might like to nibble at the edges of democracy, suppress votes, and so on but there is an essential pro-democracy line they will not cross and while we might lose civil rights and so on there remains the possibility of us retaking taking the government through elections one day and doing as we think is right.
That's the calculus that the Demorats, and the country as a whole, went through in January of 2000. Should Gore have balked at the Supreme Court stealing his victory and giving the Presidency to Junior? Risking a civil war in the process?
They decided it was best to avoid civil war, always a chancy thing, take a loss, and hold firm in their faith that while the Reepublicans might cheat when things are close, they don't actually want to completely end democracy.
And they were correct in that.
Now we're facing much the same question. When it gets to essentials, will the Republican Party and its voters abandon democracy entirely or merely steal an election here and there when they can?
That option is far from good, but you can make a good case it isn't grounds for starting up a civil war.
I think what worries most of us is the thought that 1/6 and the entire leadup to it, and then the entire aftermath, showed people who don't actually believe in democracy that they really could get rid of it.
If a couple of Republican governors had pulled shit with their EC votes it could even have gone for Trump "legally" via a contengent election. All it would take, in theory, is one Republican governor willing to take the risk who will declare his state's ballots are invalid and the election was compromised and in theory that would trigger the contengent elections clause.
In 2020 none of them were willing to do that. Now they've had four years of their base saying they would have backed them if they did, and I suspect that in 2024 we might see it happen.
Then there was that moment we teetered on the edge on 1/6 when an actual violent mob entered the capitol intent on murdering Congress and gimposing dictatorship. If Trump had pushed harder I think they would have carried through instead of fizzling out.
And I think that's what Trump believes too. He's not going to make that mistake again. If he has a mob ready to roll in and try a violent overthrow he'll push it. We're better off for 2024 in that at least he isn't in a position to stand down police and national guards. But the police are always outnumbered by the public, if it comes to it the Trumpers could storm the capitol if they chose.
Artifice_Eternity IIRC most Black voters said they favored Biden on the basis that they believed he was most likely to win against Trump not so much due to any belief that he was an especially great person or good on race.
I agree that the Sanders folks went for conspiracy crap rather than accepting that their dude from a microscopic all white state might not actually be all that appealing to Black voters. I think also Sanders has a hard time really comprehending that he was trying for a national role rather than campaigning among a bunch of white Vermonters.
But
This is why I say the left doesn't understand its own relatively marginal position in the Democratic voter coalition
Yeah? Then stop telling us its our fault when your center right neolib candidates lose. Either we matter, in which case we are owed a place at the table and a say in things, or we don't matter in which case we aren't to blame when your people lose.
You can't have it both ways. So which is it? Do we matter and deserve a voice? Or are we irrelevant and you don't need our votes?
posted by sotonohito at 12:25 PM on December 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
Artifice_Eternity IIRC most Black voters said they favored Biden on the basis that they believed he was most likely to win against Trump not so much due to any belief that he was an especially great person or good on race.
Sure. But the polling data also suggests that, in fact, many of their views correspond more to Biden's than to Sanders'. You know, all that "paranoid, racist, violent, imperialist, theocratic" stuff, LOL.
Then stop telling us its our fault when your center right neolib candidates lose. Either we matter, in which case we are owed a place at the table and a say in things, or we don't matter in which case we aren't to blame when your people lose.
I have never said that the left doesn't matter, doesn't deserves a place at the table, or doesn't deserve a say in things. It does. We all do.
(I also don't know who "[my] center right neolib candidates [that] lose" are. Is that supposed to be a reference to Biden? The guy who beat all the other Dems in 2020, and then beat Trump?)
"Everyone deserves a place at the table" is actually my point. We all need to accurately understand our positions in the large, diverse coalition that is necessary to elect left-of-center candidates under our winner-take-all system, AKA the Democratic party. And we need to see, clearly and accurately, who else is in this coalition with us.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:04 PM on December 5, 2023 [5 favorites]
Sure. But the polling data also suggests that, in fact, many of their views correspond more to Biden's than to Sanders'. You know, all that "paranoid, racist, violent, imperialist, theocratic" stuff, LOL.
Then stop telling us its our fault when your center right neolib candidates lose. Either we matter, in which case we are owed a place at the table and a say in things, or we don't matter in which case we aren't to blame when your people lose.
I have never said that the left doesn't matter, doesn't deserves a place at the table, or doesn't deserve a say in things. It does. We all do.
(I also don't know who "[my] center right neolib candidates [that] lose" are. Is that supposed to be a reference to Biden? The guy who beat all the other Dems in 2020, and then beat Trump?)
"Everyone deserves a place at the table" is actually my point. We all need to accurately understand our positions in the large, diverse coalition that is necessary to elect left-of-center candidates under our winner-take-all system, AKA the Democratic party. And we need to see, clearly and accurately, who else is in this coalition with us.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:04 PM on December 5, 2023 [5 favorites]
Politics is a lot like religion, it has its true believers, usually occupying the edges of the political spectrum, both left and right. And true believers are in the minority. For a true believer to be elected, they would have to appeal to the less ardent, convinced, and activist people hanging out in between. That requires a simpler message and one that appeals to people’s emotions and not just their intellect. So far, the left, so to speak, had its communist revolutions, and we know how those turned out. And the right, so to speak, had its fascist revolutions, and we know how those turned out too. The right used fear, primarily fear of the foreign, labeling it as a threat to everyone else’s wellbeing. And this was made easy, by labeling actual groups of people as this threat. Meanwhile, the left, also in its revolutions, labeled groups of people, but more abstract groups such as capitalists, imperialists, compounded with economic theories. The revolutions on the right got the majority populations to turn against minority populations, or at least turn their faces away from what the government was doing to these minorities. The revolutions on the left saw governments turn against the people of their nations, forcing them to conform to the goals of the few who governed them, the Holodomor, the Cultural Revolution, the Killing Fields, etc. In both cases, true believers led the way to all these destructions.
The internet is full of true believers, who all tend to be loud. We are talking about elections, where most people have a right to vote, and I expect, most people aren’t true believers. We need to understand how to get our messages to them and stop arguing amongst ourselves about doctrines. The right has the simple message, and it appears that 40% of the population seems to like it, no matter what. There’s your right, right now. And maybe they’re all ready to vote. And the 60% is itself not a single slogan monolith of people like MAGA. So… what is the message from the Democratic Party? Who’s listening? Is anyone looking back at history to see what happens in situations like this? Or are we just going to argue about who gets to sit at the table?
posted by njohnson23 at 1:27 PM on December 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
The internet is full of true believers, who all tend to be loud. We are talking about elections, where most people have a right to vote, and I expect, most people aren’t true believers. We need to understand how to get our messages to them and stop arguing amongst ourselves about doctrines. The right has the simple message, and it appears that 40% of the population seems to like it, no matter what. There’s your right, right now. And maybe they’re all ready to vote. And the 60% is itself not a single slogan monolith of people like MAGA. So… what is the message from the Democratic Party? Who’s listening? Is anyone looking back at history to see what happens in situations like this? Or are we just going to argue about who gets to sit at the table?
posted by njohnson23 at 1:27 PM on December 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
Then there was that moment we teetered on the edge on 1/6 when an actual violent mob entered the capitol intent on murdering Congress and gimposing dictatorship. If Trump had pushed harder I think they would have carried through instead of fizzling out.
If I remember correctly, I think it all came down to Eugene Goodman leading the mob away from where Congress was holed up. It's an accident of history rather than a lack of resolve. (I think Trump's resolve also fizzled out, but it was a little later in the timeline.)
posted by joannemerriam at 2:17 PM on December 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
If I remember correctly, I think it all came down to Eugene Goodman leading the mob away from where Congress was holed up. It's an accident of history rather than a lack of resolve. (I think Trump's resolve also fizzled out, but it was a little later in the timeline.)
posted by joannemerriam at 2:17 PM on December 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
njohnson23
That was the singularly most insulting, ahistoric, completely inaccurate where it wasn't outright false, malicious and vile thing I have seen in a long time and you should be ashamed of typing it.
posted by sotonohito at 2:21 PM on December 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
That was the singularly most insulting, ahistoric, completely inaccurate where it wasn't outright false, malicious and vile thing I have seen in a long time and you should be ashamed of typing it.
posted by sotonohito at 2:21 PM on December 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
If I remember correctly, I think it all came down to Eugene Goodman leading the mob away from where Congress was holed up. It's an accident of history rather than a lack of resolve. (I think Trump's resolve also fizzled out, but it was a little later in the timeline.)
Well I mean the entire affair was ham-fisted in its execution from start to finish. Even if there had been any attempt to seize the seat of power and it was successful, the trick is getting the other 300 million people to go along with it. Trump had no support from the armed forces to violate Posse Comitatus, blue state governors would have immediately told their National Guards to stand down if ordered to federalize, and every federal employee top to bottom would immediately know it's time to throw every possible obstacle in the way of Trump exercising executive power.
The terrifying thing is that with a little forethought he might have been able to secure the situation by forcing the hand of the armed forces. If he had spent the month before hand consolidating control over civilian police forces through friendly and sympathetic union leaders along with sympathetic branches of the US executive (border control) it might have been a whole different story. If that was the case then on the morning of 1/6 he instructs his law enforcement loyalists to illegally arrest as many Democratic political leaders as possible, invokes the Insurrection Act over the inevitable protests, then tells those same loyalist city cops to use live ammo on the protestors.
At that point, what does the JCOS do? There's no winning for them. Either they break the taboo on the military taking sides in civilian matters and ignore the orders of the Commander in Chief, or they watch passively as the country slips into dictatorship.
Furthermore, what do blue state governors do? Their law enforcement might be in open rebellion. Do we have state national guards engaging with Trump loyalist city cops on the streets of the United States? We're down the rabbit hole here on the absolute insanity of the situation.
That's what's truly terrifying. Not that he tried it, but that it didn't happen only through complete executive ineptitude and laziness on behalf of Trump and his team. We might not be as lucky the second time around.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:37 PM on December 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
Well I mean the entire affair was ham-fisted in its execution from start to finish. Even if there had been any attempt to seize the seat of power and it was successful, the trick is getting the other 300 million people to go along with it. Trump had no support from the armed forces to violate Posse Comitatus, blue state governors would have immediately told their National Guards to stand down if ordered to federalize, and every federal employee top to bottom would immediately know it's time to throw every possible obstacle in the way of Trump exercising executive power.
The terrifying thing is that with a little forethought he might have been able to secure the situation by forcing the hand of the armed forces. If he had spent the month before hand consolidating control over civilian police forces through friendly and sympathetic union leaders along with sympathetic branches of the US executive (border control) it might have been a whole different story. If that was the case then on the morning of 1/6 he instructs his law enforcement loyalists to illegally arrest as many Democratic political leaders as possible, invokes the Insurrection Act over the inevitable protests, then tells those same loyalist city cops to use live ammo on the protestors.
At that point, what does the JCOS do? There's no winning for them. Either they break the taboo on the military taking sides in civilian matters and ignore the orders of the Commander in Chief, or they watch passively as the country slips into dictatorship.
Furthermore, what do blue state governors do? Their law enforcement might be in open rebellion. Do we have state national guards engaging with Trump loyalist city cops on the streets of the United States? We're down the rabbit hole here on the absolute insanity of the situation.
That's what's truly terrifying. Not that he tried it, but that it didn't happen only through complete executive ineptitude and laziness on behalf of Trump and his team. We might not be as lucky the second time around.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:37 PM on December 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
That was the singularly most insulting, ahistoric, completely inaccurate where it wasn't outright false, malicious and vile thing I have seen in a long time and you should be ashamed of typing it.
posted by sotonohito at 2:21 PM on December 5 [+] [⚑]
I respectfully disagree
posted by From Bklyn at 2:39 PM on December 5, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 2:21 PM on December 5 [+] [⚑]
I respectfully disagree
posted by From Bklyn at 2:39 PM on December 5, 2023 [8 favorites]
Via RawStory today: Steve Bannon: Non-Christian nationalists 'all have to be purged' in Trump's second term.
..."That's the sick, twisted people that watch MSNBC that must be defeated so they no longer can infest the government of this country. They all have to be purged," he added. "Purged. Right. Anybody who would think that was bad has to be purged."
No doubt he means he'll send his co-host today, Mike Lindell, to poke me with the extra-stuffed corner of a MyPillow until I confess. (Bannon does remind me a bit of Cardinal Biggles, now that I think about it...)
posted by zaixfeep at 2:44 PM on December 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
..."That's the sick, twisted people that watch MSNBC that must be defeated so they no longer can infest the government of this country. They all have to be purged," he added. "Purged. Right. Anybody who would think that was bad has to be purged."
No doubt he means he'll send his co-host today, Mike Lindell, to poke me with the extra-stuffed corner of a MyPillow until I confess. (Bannon does remind me a bit of Cardinal Biggles, now that I think about it...)
posted by zaixfeep at 2:44 PM on December 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
..."That's the sick, twisted people that watch MSNBC that must be defeated so they no longer can infest the government of this country. They all have to be purged," he added. "Purged. Right. Anybody who would think that was bad has to be purged."
But sure, I'm clutching my pearls.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 2:50 PM on December 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
But sure, I'm clutching my pearls.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 2:50 PM on December 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
“How countries fall down the fascist rabbit hole,” Lucian K. Truscott IV, 05 December 2023
posted by ob1quixote at 6:57 PM on December 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 6:57 PM on December 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
"Steve Bannon: Non-Christian nationalists 'all have to be purged' in Trump's second term."
This Bannon shit is getting really real outside America too; his meddling has resulted in New Zealand voting in a fundamentalist Christian group (too ridiculous to call them politicians). Sure it's not as performative and noisy, or violent (yet) - as your nascent USian form, but the (National Party, called the 'the Taliban' by traditional conservatives) PM Luxon is an anti; science, abortion, LGB, climate change ... six-day creationist and a thoroughly nasty piece of work eg calling an air-hostess “ just .. a waitress” to her face and referred to poor people as bottom feeders. He later always says 'no you've got me wrong what I really meant was'…
NZ started this way just after Covid hit, and US & UK troublemakers started arriving (always looked like heritage or federalist society $). I can back this up but right now we're all just fearing what's next - in their first week they have:
• Sought to cancel our globally lauded anti-smoking campaign
• Stated they'll have all govt/ departments remove Maori signage
• Moved to defund various Maori language programs
• Moved to cut disability payments
• Threatened fair pay agreements
I fully expect nuclear to be introduced and an imminent pro-Zionist statement.
Their policy includes restarting oil exploration.
They are quite likely pro-Russia.
The previous ruling labour government pandered to undecided voters - (just like the UK's Starmer). Many National Party members either abstained from voting, voted for labour, or other minor parties - and the latter took quite a few seats from national, forcing a very weird coalition of a Pentecostal (Luxon), an extreme racist libertarian (Seymour), and a racist fantasist (Peters) who sees communists everywhere. The only economics they know is Patrick Minford - doyen of the Tories for 40 years. Protests have started this week and words like resistance are being used unironically and very seriously.
posted by unearthed at 10:54 PM on December 5, 2023 [14 favorites]
This Bannon shit is getting really real outside America too; his meddling has resulted in New Zealand voting in a fundamentalist Christian group (too ridiculous to call them politicians). Sure it's not as performative and noisy, or violent (yet) - as your nascent USian form, but the (National Party, called the 'the Taliban' by traditional conservatives) PM Luxon is an anti; science, abortion, LGB, climate change ... six-day creationist and a thoroughly nasty piece of work eg calling an air-hostess “ just .. a waitress” to her face and referred to poor people as bottom feeders. He later always says 'no you've got me wrong what I really meant was'…
NZ started this way just after Covid hit, and US & UK troublemakers started arriving (always looked like heritage or federalist society $). I can back this up but right now we're all just fearing what's next - in their first week they have:
• Sought to cancel our globally lauded anti-smoking campaign
• Stated they'll have all govt/ departments remove Maori signage
• Moved to defund various Maori language programs
• Moved to cut disability payments
• Threatened fair pay agreements
I fully expect nuclear to be introduced and an imminent pro-Zionist statement.
Their policy includes restarting oil exploration.
They are quite likely pro-Russia.
The previous ruling labour government pandered to undecided voters - (just like the UK's Starmer). Many National Party members either abstained from voting, voted for labour, or other minor parties - and the latter took quite a few seats from national, forcing a very weird coalition of a Pentecostal (Luxon), an extreme racist libertarian (Seymour), and a racist fantasist (Peters) who sees communists everywhere. The only economics they know is Patrick Minford - doyen of the Tories for 40 years. Protests have started this week and words like resistance are being used unironically and very seriously.
posted by unearthed at 10:54 PM on December 5, 2023 [14 favorites]
Part of a serious commitment to democracy means accepting when your views, your candidates, etc. do not prevail, particularly within your own coalition, and trying to understand why that happened. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, well, you may be committed to a set of policies, but you're not much interested in democracy.
It's become clear over the last 12 years (probably longer, but that's when it became clear to me) that for far too many people with whom we often agree on policy the big problem with wannabe right wing authoritarians is not that they are right wing authoritarians but that they are right wing authoritarians.
And what they want is a left wing authoritarian who will sweep away all the red tape and messy democracy and implement the policies we like.
posted by Justinian at 1:37 AM on December 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
It's become clear over the last 12 years (probably longer, but that's when it became clear to me) that for far too many people with whom we often agree on policy the big problem with wannabe right wing authoritarians is not that they are right wing authoritarians but that they are right wing authoritarians.
And what they want is a left wing authoritarian who will sweep away all the red tape and messy democracy and implement the policies we like.
posted by Justinian at 1:37 AM on December 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
Can we not snidely dismiss each other as secret authoritarians who share more in common with our political opponents?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:41 AM on December 6, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:41 AM on December 6, 2023 [9 favorites]
you may be committed to a set of policies, but you're not much interested in democracy
What if your policies include protecting the right to access abortion, or even the right to exist as trans? There are lots of jurisdictions where people are being democratically elected on platforms of restricting those rights. What then? Tell people to organize better next time? Move to a different state?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:09 AM on December 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
What if your policies include protecting the right to access abortion, or even the right to exist as trans? There are lots of jurisdictions where people are being democratically elected on platforms of restricting those rights. What then? Tell people to organize better next time? Move to a different state?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:09 AM on December 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
Can we not snidely dismiss each other as secret authoritarians who share more in common with our political opponents?
This is actually a common finding in political science; it would be weird if it weren't true.
Most Americans* are terrible about applying general principles of democratic tolerance to specific cases and terrible about extending civil protections to people they hate. Give people a list of groups -- racists, blacks, homosexuals, christians, people who talk in the theater -- and ask them who they dislike the most. Wide majorities of Americans will straight up tell you that their most-disliked group should be legally forbidden from being teachers, that they should be legally ineligible for election, or that they should just be exiled. These findings are long-standing and consistent across decades.
There's another set of findings that I've always thought were more suspect because they rely heavily on focus groups. But anyhow Hibbing and Thiess-Morse argue that Americans* really dislike being confronted with the fact that lots of other Americans disagree with them about important things. Which leads to strong disapproval of political things that make their disagreements open, like legislatures and elections, and stronger approval of political things that mask their disagreement, like courts. And it also means that lots of / most Americans (there's that reliance on focus groups again) don't really want democracy in all its messiness -- I forget their putatively-clever acronym, but they want a non-self-interested, empathetic decision maker to just do stuff.
*And presumably people of other nations unless you want to claim that somehow Americans are neurologically distinct; I just don't know that research because I'm a philistine Americanist
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 6:13 AM on December 6, 2023 [13 favorites]
This is actually a common finding in political science; it would be weird if it weren't true.
Most Americans* are terrible about applying general principles of democratic tolerance to specific cases and terrible about extending civil protections to people they hate. Give people a list of groups -- racists, blacks, homosexuals, christians, people who talk in the theater -- and ask them who they dislike the most. Wide majorities of Americans will straight up tell you that their most-disliked group should be legally forbidden from being teachers, that they should be legally ineligible for election, or that they should just be exiled. These findings are long-standing and consistent across decades.
There's another set of findings that I've always thought were more suspect because they rely heavily on focus groups. But anyhow Hibbing and Thiess-Morse argue that Americans* really dislike being confronted with the fact that lots of other Americans disagree with them about important things. Which leads to strong disapproval of political things that make their disagreements open, like legislatures and elections, and stronger approval of political things that mask their disagreement, like courts. And it also means that lots of / most Americans (there's that reliance on focus groups again) don't really want democracy in all its messiness -- I forget their putatively-clever acronym, but they want a non-self-interested, empathetic decision maker to just do stuff.
*And presumably people of other nations unless you want to claim that somehow Americans are neurologically distinct; I just don't know that research because I'm a philistine Americanist
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 6:13 AM on December 6, 2023 [13 favorites]
The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America
Saw both authors interviewed on a late night television show last month and found their research timely. In a nutshell, politics is tribalism.
posted by Brian B. at 6:22 AM on December 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Saw both authors interviewed on a late night television show last month and found their research timely. In a nutshell, politics is tribalism.
posted by Brian B. at 6:22 AM on December 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Wide majorities of Americans will straight up tell you that their most-disliked group should be legally forbidden from being teachers,
Now I agree to a certain extent that there's a lot of latent authoritarianism on both sides but there's actually good reasons to legally forbid a lot of people from becoming teachers and batshit insane conservatives often strike multiple of them at once. People who don't teach science when called for should not be teachers. People who only teach indoctrination to hold together the structure of their cultural hegemony instead of being curious and looking for answers should not be teachers. People who want children to wallow in the ignorance of their own bodily autonomy and what constitutes sexual abuse should not be teachers.
We can't both sides shit like this. Some people should not be teachers and subscribing to certain political philosophies that go against the basic tenants of being a good teacher and the search for knowledge shouldn't be allowed to teach. That's not authoritarianism. That's being prudent and sensible.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:45 AM on December 6, 2023 [10 favorites]
Now I agree to a certain extent that there's a lot of latent authoritarianism on both sides but there's actually good reasons to legally forbid a lot of people from becoming teachers and batshit insane conservatives often strike multiple of them at once. People who don't teach science when called for should not be teachers. People who only teach indoctrination to hold together the structure of their cultural hegemony instead of being curious and looking for answers should not be teachers. People who want children to wallow in the ignorance of their own bodily autonomy and what constitutes sexual abuse should not be teachers.
We can't both sides shit like this. Some people should not be teachers and subscribing to certain political philosophies that go against the basic tenants of being a good teacher and the search for knowledge shouldn't be allowed to teach. That's not authoritarianism. That's being prudent and sensible.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:45 AM on December 6, 2023 [10 favorites]
Yeah, it's always the teacher question that gets the largest majorities.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:32 AM on December 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:32 AM on December 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
Point of order. It's obviously trivial and quite common to dismiss people with whom you disagree on policy as secret authoritarians. I was actually implying that a lot of people with whom most of us agree on policy are secret authoritarians. I just want to be accurate here!
posted by Justinian at 12:03 PM on December 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:03 PM on December 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
It's still a very unproductive, bad faith kind of argument to make.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:19 PM on December 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:19 PM on December 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
Also from the Washington Post: Enough with all the fatalism about a Trump dictatorship, an opinion piece by Greg Sargent (Quick! Read it before the Washington Post's workers go on strike Thursday - or wait and read it Friday.)
It remains underappreciated, but our national response to the antidemocratic menace of the Trump years has in some respects been surprisingly good — not just electorally but also institutionally. Trump’s gaming of the judicial system to overturn his 2020 loss hit a wall in the courts. By a wide bipartisan margin, Congress passed reforms to Trump-proof the system by which we count electoral votes.posted by kristi at 12:40 PM on December 6, 2023 [9 favorites]
... Fears that the Justice Department would refrain from prosecuting Trump and his co-conspirators amid more intimations of mob violence proved unfounded.
...
The impulse to sound alarms — to break voters out of their “it can’t happen here” doldrums — is understandable. But it’s also possible to take this too far ... Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of strongman rule, has noted that a time-tested tactic of authoritarian leaders is to disarm the electorate by suggesting their glorious triumph is inevitable.
“Authoritarians create a climate where they seem unstoppable,” Ben-Ghiat told me. “Creating an aura of destiny around the leader galvanizes his supporters by making his movement seem much stronger than it actually is. The manipulation of perception is everything.”
The aim is to hypnotize voters into forgetting the power and numbers that they possess, persuading them that politics is a hopelessly sordid and disappointing exercise. But that is not the story of the Trump years.
The purpose of this isn’t to downplay the gravity of the moment; it’s to channel anxieties about it in a constructive direction. ... excessive public worries about Trump’s supposed inevitability bury the all-important truth that popular majorities have regularly, emphatically rejected Trump and all he represents
It's still a very unproductive, bad faith kind of argument to make.
Speaking for myself, if people quit demanding that Biden accomplish things by fiat, ignoring the Supreme Court, Congress, the law and the norms, then I will stop suspecting them of being authoritarians.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:58 PM on December 6, 2023 [12 favorites]
Speaking for myself, if people quit demanding that Biden accomplish things by fiat, ignoring the Supreme Court, Congress, the law and the norms, then I will stop suspecting them of being authoritarians.
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:58 PM on December 6, 2023 [12 favorites]
I'm... Wow. Insert the Malcolm Reynolds unable to speak gif here.
Right here, right now, with Donald John Trump having a very real possibility of winning, the liberal branch of the Democratic party has decided that NOW is the best time to viciously lie about, attack, and alienate the left?
"We fucking hate you and think you're evil incarnate but you'd better vote for us because Trump" is not really the winning slogan y'all seem to think it is. I mean, if Trump was your concern I'd think the liberals might want to, I don't know, reach out to and work with the left rather than screaming "authoritarian" at us?
I'd suggest that perhaps you might have the wrong priorities here?
Brian B. In a nutshell, politics is tribalism.
While there is undeniably an in/out group aspect to politics, it is utterly absurd to argue, as they did, that the ever popular BothSides are purely arbitrary, and I can't believe that people with those credentials are unaware of the huge body of research and theory they're ignoring.
In a nutshell, Conservatives will tend to support measures that concentrate power in a smaller population and tend to oppose measures which distribute power to a larger population.
This also tends to make Conservatism reactionary, it doesn't actually go out looking for things to do but rather reacts to people seeking to distribute power.
This means that yes, the specifics of any particular era's Conservative action will differ. In 1776 Conservatism was opposed to democracy and in favor of monarchy. In 1886 Conservatism was opposed to abolition and in favor of slavery. And so on through the centuries as in each era some new group of oppressed people began getting the leverage necessary to nudge their supposed allies in the majority into action.
And likewise anti-Conservatism has had different specifics, but follows a similar pattern: it's the force that's trying to get civil rights for the next oppressed group.
posted by sotonohito at 6:41 PM on December 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
Right here, right now, with Donald John Trump having a very real possibility of winning, the liberal branch of the Democratic party has decided that NOW is the best time to viciously lie about, attack, and alienate the left?
"We fucking hate you and think you're evil incarnate but you'd better vote for us because Trump" is not really the winning slogan y'all seem to think it is. I mean, if Trump was your concern I'd think the liberals might want to, I don't know, reach out to and work with the left rather than screaming "authoritarian" at us?
I'd suggest that perhaps you might have the wrong priorities here?
Brian B. In a nutshell, politics is tribalism.
While there is undeniably an in/out group aspect to politics, it is utterly absurd to argue, as they did, that the ever popular BothSides are purely arbitrary, and I can't believe that people with those credentials are unaware of the huge body of research and theory they're ignoring.
In a nutshell, Conservatives will tend to support measures that concentrate power in a smaller population and tend to oppose measures which distribute power to a larger population.
This also tends to make Conservatism reactionary, it doesn't actually go out looking for things to do but rather reacts to people seeking to distribute power.
This means that yes, the specifics of any particular era's Conservative action will differ. In 1776 Conservatism was opposed to democracy and in favor of monarchy. In 1886 Conservatism was opposed to abolition and in favor of slavery. And so on through the centuries as in each era some new group of oppressed people began getting the leverage necessary to nudge their supposed allies in the majority into action.
And likewise anti-Conservatism has had different specifics, but follows a similar pattern: it's the force that's trying to get civil rights for the next oppressed group.
posted by sotonohito at 6:41 PM on December 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
Justinian Well, you were still inaccurate.
You're dead wrong about the left being authoritarians, but if you're seeking accuracy in your vicious and foolish accusations don't add the insult of claiming we agree with you on policy.
The left doesn't agree with you on policy at all. Despite your best efforts to drive us away most of us still grudgingly vote Democratic because soft right is better than hard right.
You want to reform hierarchy. We want to end hierarchy. We are not after the same goal.
posted by sotonohito at 6:45 PM on December 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
You're dead wrong about the left being authoritarians, but if you're seeking accuracy in your vicious and foolish accusations don't add the insult of claiming we agree with you on policy.
The left doesn't agree with you on policy at all. Despite your best efforts to drive us away most of us still grudgingly vote Democratic because soft right is better than hard right.
You want to reform hierarchy. We want to end hierarchy. We are not after the same goal.
posted by sotonohito at 6:45 PM on December 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
My ideal form of government is an absolute dictator that always agrees with me and just does all the shit I want him to do. I know what needs to be done, I just need someone to do it! That would a smart, wise, and caring authoritarian and would probably actually be a pretty nice place to live! In my mind it would work out so well that our beloved leader would hold legit elections and people would vote to stick with dictatorship as long as it's him!
Since that's not a thing that exists and I won't trust anyone else with that kind of power, I support democracy as the next best option.
That's all this "authoritarian leanings" stuff is about. Doesn't everyone fantasize about what they would do for the world with absolute power?
posted by VTX at 7:26 PM on December 6, 2023 [7 favorites]
Since that's not a thing that exists and I won't trust anyone else with that kind of power, I support democracy as the next best option.
That's all this "authoritarian leanings" stuff is about. Doesn't everyone fantasize about what they would do for the world with absolute power?
posted by VTX at 7:26 PM on December 6, 2023 [7 favorites]
From yesterday's Today in Tabs:
Even if you’re as despairing about American politics as I am these days, this Jamelle Bouie post might give you a little bit of hope.posted by ob1quixote at 6:36 AM on December 7, 2023 [4 favorites]You could even make a case that American politics now is more open and democratic and less corrupt than it has ever been, which is a testament to how undemocratic and corrupt and terrible American Politics has been.
“How to talk about Trump's Dictator Remark,” Dan Pfeiffer, The Message Box, 07 December 2023
posted by ob1quixote at 7:06 AM on December 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 7:06 AM on December 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
While there is undeniably an in/out group aspect to politics, it is utterly absurd to argue, as they did, that the ever popular BothSides are purely arbitrary, and I can't believe that people with those credentials are unaware of the huge body of research and theory they're ignoring.
They pointed out that nearly every policy once had a home in both camps. Without having read it, I already agree that right and left ideally fix or polarize things that may be identical or arbitrary, especially authoritarian/totalitarian tendencies. The terms right and left can lead people to extremes by fleeing from one and clinging to identify with the other (by comparison, the terms liberal and conservative have no compass effect as historical descriptions). Absolute truth always comes in some form of written deterministic dualism, and can lead normal people to the levels of craziness to perform atrocities. In secular terms this left and right compass gets more absurd, because the hardcore hide their golden prophecies, whether fascism or Marxism, because they substitute various critiques to avoid being exposed as a true believer. Secularized discussions hide their intent, because black and white absolutism is not shared with their impure and unwashed opponent who doesn't have the same truth compass. Left and right mental framing also lends to their uncanny ability to reverse reality in denial and accusations, as Trump does, and have it make sense to the believer, because the compass is easily manipulated with only two settings. If their North star absolute authority says so, then it must be true. It is refreshing to finally see religious dogma appear as the Trumpian blueprint rather than just bluster about crime and fear, because the blueprint becomes fair game for discussion in some places (though fewer than before) and does not waste time getting to the point.
posted by Brian B. at 8:33 AM on December 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
They pointed out that nearly every policy once had a home in both camps. Without having read it, I already agree that right and left ideally fix or polarize things that may be identical or arbitrary, especially authoritarian/totalitarian tendencies. The terms right and left can lead people to extremes by fleeing from one and clinging to identify with the other (by comparison, the terms liberal and conservative have no compass effect as historical descriptions). Absolute truth always comes in some form of written deterministic dualism, and can lead normal people to the levels of craziness to perform atrocities. In secular terms this left and right compass gets more absurd, because the hardcore hide their golden prophecies, whether fascism or Marxism, because they substitute various critiques to avoid being exposed as a true believer. Secularized discussions hide their intent, because black and white absolutism is not shared with their impure and unwashed opponent who doesn't have the same truth compass. Left and right mental framing also lends to their uncanny ability to reverse reality in denial and accusations, as Trump does, and have it make sense to the believer, because the compass is easily manipulated with only two settings. If their North star absolute authority says so, then it must be true. It is refreshing to finally see religious dogma appear as the Trumpian blueprint rather than just bluster about crime and fear, because the blueprint becomes fair game for discussion in some places (though fewer than before) and does not waste time getting to the point.
posted by Brian B. at 8:33 AM on December 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
That's all this "authoritarian leanings" stuff is about. Doesn't everyone fantasize about what they would do for the world with absolute power?
In some sense the “what would you do with lots of power?” question is inescapable for anyone who watches Western media, eg. the Marvel franchise. But I’m not sure it really counts as the same thing when my fantasy is that if such power fell into my hands somehow, I’d redistribute that power as equitably as possible/more equitably than power is currently distributed. So I’m going to say that the answer to your question is “no”.
posted by eviemath at 8:39 AM on December 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
In some sense the “what would you do with lots of power?” question is inescapable for anyone who watches Western media, eg. the Marvel franchise. But I’m not sure it really counts as the same thing when my fantasy is that if such power fell into my hands somehow, I’d redistribute that power as equitably as possible/more equitably than power is currently distributed. So I’m going to say that the answer to your question is “no”.
posted by eviemath at 8:39 AM on December 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
Speaking for myself, if people quit demanding that Biden accomplish things by fiat, ignoring the Supreme Court, Congress, the law and the norms, then I will stop suspecting them of being authoritarians.
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:58 PM on December 6
I sympathize, but also a lot of people just don't know how things work. It's not that they're authoritarians (and want the president to be a dictator) but that they think the system is already set up to allow the president to do pretty much whatever he wants (regardless of how they would structure things if they had the opportunity).
posted by joannemerriam at 9:36 AM on December 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:58 PM on December 6
I sympathize, but also a lot of people just don't know how things work. It's not that they're authoritarians (and want the president to be a dictator) but that they think the system is already set up to allow the president to do pretty much whatever he wants (regardless of how they would structure things if they had the opportunity).
posted by joannemerriam at 9:36 AM on December 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
OnceUponATime You're making up strawmen to jutify your vicious hatred of the left and your continuing slander of leftists.
The idea that the left, as a whole, favors an imperial presidency or authoritarianism in general is patently absurd. You've fallen into the trap of thinking that having a goal and pursuing it is morally suspicious.
Goals, ends, agendas, ideologies, are not inherently bad. Nor authoritarian.
Brian B. If I'm parsing that wall of paragraph free text correctly, you seem to be arguing that because the left and right both contain ideologies which favor authoritarianism that they're identical?
And, again I think I'm parsing this correctly, that because American liberalism was either pro-slavery or slavery-indifferent in 1776 when it was opposing an American conservatism that was fighting to preserve monarchy, the later move towards abolitionism among liberals is arbitrary and they're all the same and nothing really matters because it's all just a matter of in group identity [1]?
So is it just some bizarre accident of history that conservative groups have always, consistently, advocated to concentrate power and dignity among fewer people while liberal groups have worked to spread power and dignity to more people?
Are you actually arguing that it could just as easily have been liberals fighting to keep slavery and conservatives favoring abolition? If there's no actual underlying ideological split and it's all just in group loyalty, it would follow that we'd see a more or less even distribution of fighitng or or against power concentration among liberals and conservatives. We don't.
I will also argue that authoritariani/libertarian is a separate spectrum from left/right or liberal/conservative and it is a category error to believe that the "further" left or right a person is the more likely they are to support authoritarianism. After all, the far left included both Stalin and Emma Goldman, one notibly authoritarian and the other notibly not authoritarian.
[1] Note that "tribalism" is generally not considered a great term to use for that sort of intolerance of out-groups.
posted by sotonohito at 11:03 AM on December 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
The idea that the left, as a whole, favors an imperial presidency or authoritarianism in general is patently absurd. You've fallen into the trap of thinking that having a goal and pursuing it is morally suspicious.
Goals, ends, agendas, ideologies, are not inherently bad. Nor authoritarian.
Brian B. If I'm parsing that wall of paragraph free text correctly, you seem to be arguing that because the left and right both contain ideologies which favor authoritarianism that they're identical?
And, again I think I'm parsing this correctly, that because American liberalism was either pro-slavery or slavery-indifferent in 1776 when it was opposing an American conservatism that was fighting to preserve monarchy, the later move towards abolitionism among liberals is arbitrary and they're all the same and nothing really matters because it's all just a matter of in group identity [1]?
So is it just some bizarre accident of history that conservative groups have always, consistently, advocated to concentrate power and dignity among fewer people while liberal groups have worked to spread power and dignity to more people?
Are you actually arguing that it could just as easily have been liberals fighting to keep slavery and conservatives favoring abolition? If there's no actual underlying ideological split and it's all just in group loyalty, it would follow that we'd see a more or less even distribution of fighitng or or against power concentration among liberals and conservatives. We don't.
I will also argue that authoritariani/libertarian is a separate spectrum from left/right or liberal/conservative and it is a category error to believe that the "further" left or right a person is the more likely they are to support authoritarianism. After all, the far left included both Stalin and Emma Goldman, one notibly authoritarian and the other notibly not authoritarian.
[1] Note that "tribalism" is generally not considered a great term to use for that sort of intolerance of out-groups.
posted by sotonohito at 11:03 AM on December 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
paraphrasing-
"I think some people on the left might not realize their zeal can lead to an authoritarian nightmare they probably don't want"
"How dare you accuse everyone on the left of being authoritarian!"
That's the trajectory this conversation took.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:10 AM on December 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
"I think some people on the left might not realize their zeal can lead to an authoritarian nightmare they probably don't want"
"How dare you accuse everyone on the left of being authoritarian!"
That's the trajectory this conversation took.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:10 AM on December 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
Justinian Well, you were still inaccurate.
You're dead wrong about the left being authoritarians, but if you're seeking accuracy in your vicious and foolish accusations don't add the insult of claiming we agree with you on policy.
The left doesn't agree with you on policy at all. Despite your best efforts to drive us away most of us still grudgingly vote Democratic because soft right is better than hard right.
Sotonohito, I have searched this thread for Justinian expressing policy disagreements with the left. I find no sign of anything like that.
I will say that I agree with I-Write-Essays' comment above, that some on the left who do advocate for essentially authoritarian solutions -- "Biden should just pass executive orders to do [X], [Y], and [Z]!" -- truly don't understand how our government works.
Civics education in this country is grievously poor. And many people now get their ideas about politics from viral social media feeds that pass on decontextualized factoids, and advocate for simplistic, improbable, or even impossible solutions.
But there are people on the left who should know better. I'm talking about the kind of people who say things like, "Well, Trump ignored the law and did whatever he wanted -- why can't Biden grow a pair and do the same?" Those people most certainly exist, and most certainly are authoritarians.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:27 AM on December 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
You're dead wrong about the left being authoritarians, but if you're seeking accuracy in your vicious and foolish accusations don't add the insult of claiming we agree with you on policy.
The left doesn't agree with you on policy at all. Despite your best efforts to drive us away most of us still grudgingly vote Democratic because soft right is better than hard right.
Sotonohito, I have searched this thread for Justinian expressing policy disagreements with the left. I find no sign of anything like that.
I will say that I agree with I-Write-Essays' comment above, that some on the left who do advocate for essentially authoritarian solutions -- "Biden should just pass executive orders to do [X], [Y], and [Z]!" -- truly don't understand how our government works.
Civics education in this country is grievously poor. And many people now get their ideas about politics from viral social media feeds that pass on decontextualized factoids, and advocate for simplistic, improbable, or even impossible solutions.
But there are people on the left who should know better. I'm talking about the kind of people who say things like, "Well, Trump ignored the law and did whatever he wanted -- why can't Biden grow a pair and do the same?" Those people most certainly exist, and most certainly are authoritarians.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:27 AM on December 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
So is it just some bizarre accident of history that conservative groups have always, consistently, advocated to concentrate power and dignity among fewer people while liberal groups have worked to spread power and dignity to more people?
I suppose the problem is that left and right potentially includes communists or Nazis (neither of them being power spreaders) but the terms liberal and conservative don't on their own. Conservatives were always fearing change, which is why sudden change alarms them to become Nazis. Self-described leftists underestimate reactions on the right, and the right overestimates the impact of the left generally. A recipe for disaster.
posted by Brian B. at 12:02 PM on December 7, 2023
I suppose the problem is that left and right potentially includes communists or Nazis (neither of them being power spreaders) but the terms liberal and conservative don't on their own. Conservatives were always fearing change, which is why sudden change alarms them to become Nazis. Self-described leftists underestimate reactions on the right, and the right overestimates the impact of the left generally. A recipe for disaster.
posted by Brian B. at 12:02 PM on December 7, 2023
Authoritarianism is a fuzzy word, used as a term for both a political system and a personality type. As a political system it concentrates on the “leader” as the authority and thus authoritarian. As a personality type, it denotes people who prefer to be led, to be told what to think, who seek an authority to lead them. An authoritarian leader needs these kind of people. I lead, you follow. You lead, we follow. Mutual symbiosis. Both the right and the left have both such leaders and such followers, as we are talking about human psychology. Any mention of authoritarianism needs to address both sides, the leaders and the followers. Bob Altemeyer at the University of Manitoba has written extensively about this.
posted by njohnson23 at 12:07 PM on December 7, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 12:07 PM on December 7, 2023 [4 favorites]
However, lest someone bring this up again, this is no "both sides"-ism. It's not that the left and right are the same in this regard. The right being worse about this is no excuse to let its roots take hold on the left as well. That's how we got the Soviet Union.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 12:11 PM on December 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 12:11 PM on December 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure I agree with Altemeyer's notion that right-wing means people who want to support the establishment and left-wing are people who want to overthrow the establishment. That would make Trump left-wing. I think the establishment right now is neither left nor right, it is the neoliberal center.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 12:44 PM on December 7, 2023
posted by I-Write-Essays at 12:44 PM on December 7, 2023
Artifice_Eternity
I apologize to both you and Justinian. I must have phrased myself especially poorly and while I do have disagreement on the most fundamental level with Justinian I also have a fairly large degree of respect for him and would never deliberately try to misrepresent his words or thoughts.
I did not mean to say or imply that Justinian said he had policy disagreements with the left. In his slander against the left he said he wanted to make it clear that he was specifically accusing people he thought he did have policy agreements with of being authoritarian.
I am saying that he was factually in error when he claimed there was agreement on policy. At the deepest, most fundamental level, there is not and never will be real policy agreement between liberals and leftists.
Liberalism seeks to reform hierarchy.
Leftism seeks to abolish hierarchy.
That fundamental disagreement is why liberals often hate the left in a way they do not hate the far right. Because liberals and the far right are in agreement on that same core level that they are in disagreement with the left.
Their disagreement is about how oppressive and cruel the hierarchy should be: liberals want a less cruel hierarchy, the far right wants a more cruel hierarchy. They are united in the belief that hierarchy is some combination of necessary, good, inevitable, or stable.
Both are united in the belief that leftists are dangerous advocates of chaos, destruction, civil unrest, and likely the end of civilization itself.
Which is probably the explanation for the slanders and lies that fill this thread. The left is evil, authoritarianism is evil, so therefore the left must be authoritarian.
I-write-essays
I was responding to the person who wrote this, among other things:
Its yet another variation on the horseshoe theory nonsense, that the further left or right one goes the more authoritarian they become. Which is absurd as it would put anarchist Emma Goldman in the same "far left therefore authoritarian" category as Stalin.
posted by sotonohito at 12:52 PM on December 7, 2023 [5 favorites]
I apologize to both you and Justinian. I must have phrased myself especially poorly and while I do have disagreement on the most fundamental level with Justinian I also have a fairly large degree of respect for him and would never deliberately try to misrepresent his words or thoughts.
I did not mean to say or imply that Justinian said he had policy disagreements with the left. In his slander against the left he said he wanted to make it clear that he was specifically accusing people he thought he did have policy agreements with of being authoritarian.
I am saying that he was factually in error when he claimed there was agreement on policy. At the deepest, most fundamental level, there is not and never will be real policy agreement between liberals and leftists.
Liberalism seeks to reform hierarchy.
Leftism seeks to abolish hierarchy.
That fundamental disagreement is why liberals often hate the left in a way they do not hate the far right. Because liberals and the far right are in agreement on that same core level that they are in disagreement with the left.
Their disagreement is about how oppressive and cruel the hierarchy should be: liberals want a less cruel hierarchy, the far right wants a more cruel hierarchy. They are united in the belief that hierarchy is some combination of necessary, good, inevitable, or stable.
Both are united in the belief that leftists are dangerous advocates of chaos, destruction, civil unrest, and likely the end of civilization itself.
Which is probably the explanation for the slanders and lies that fill this thread. The left is evil, authoritarianism is evil, so therefore the left must be authoritarian.
I-write-essays
I was responding to the person who wrote this, among other things:
So far, the left, so to speak, had its communist revolutions, and we know how those turned out. And the right, so to speak, had its fascist revolutions, and we know how those turned out tooLeftism == communist revoluton and then later they went on to communist revolution == genocide.
Its yet another variation on the horseshoe theory nonsense, that the further left or right one goes the more authoritarian they become. Which is absurd as it would put anarchist Emma Goldman in the same "far left therefore authoritarian" category as Stalin.
posted by sotonohito at 12:52 PM on December 7, 2023 [5 favorites]
At the risk of further stirring the hornet's nest, I'd actually point out that the immediately fury and hurling of words like "vicious and obscene accusation" at the observation that some leftists, being human, have unexamined authoritarian tendencies and politics are generally deeply focused on in-group/out-group and the subsequent hierarchies... kinda proves the original point. Criticism of the poster's in-group was perceived instantly as both threat and insult, because the in-group was being compared to the Hated Out-Group.
This despite the fact that the criticism is well-founded, because humans do not stop being humans just because they have read Karl Marx. There is a ton of intra-left criticism about not examining and unpacking authoritarian leanings; it can't all be conservative bad actors trying to bothsides the issue.
Unless, of course, one's founding premise is that leftists cannot fail, only be failed, and left-auth people and movements are No True Leftist... in which case we may as well give up.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 12:59 PM on December 7, 2023 [8 favorites]
This despite the fact that the criticism is well-founded, because humans do not stop being humans just because they have read Karl Marx. There is a ton of intra-left criticism about not examining and unpacking authoritarian leanings; it can't all be conservative bad actors trying to bothsides the issue.
Unless, of course, one's founding premise is that leftists cannot fail, only be failed, and left-auth people and movements are No True Leftist... in which case we may as well give up.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 12:59 PM on December 7, 2023 [8 favorites]
The claim was not that sometimes certain leftists can be authoritarian, the claim was that leftism inevitably becomes authoritarian and leads to genocide if you are a "true believer".
Leftism can absolutely be authoritarian, I have never claimed otherwise. It's an umbrella term that covers hundreds of distinct political ideologies that range from Anarchism to Stalinism.
My objection is to horseshoe nonsense and the slander that leftism is, or "true believers" in lefism are, inherently authoritarian. It's one of the most destructive and widespread political memes out there and one the liberals love to weaponize by trying to pretend that leftism is merely liberalism with the volume turned up to a dangerously authoritarian level.
posted by sotonohito at 1:31 PM on December 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
Leftism can absolutely be authoritarian, I have never claimed otherwise. It's an umbrella term that covers hundreds of distinct political ideologies that range from Anarchism to Stalinism.
My objection is to horseshoe nonsense and the slander that leftism is, or "true believers" in lefism are, inherently authoritarian. It's one of the most destructive and widespread political memes out there and one the liberals love to weaponize by trying to pretend that leftism is merely liberalism with the volume turned up to a dangerously authoritarian level.
posted by sotonohito at 1:31 PM on December 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
> the claim was that leftism inevitably becomes authoritarian
I don't think it's inevitable, but I dislike the idea of revolutionary change for the same reason I dislike bringing in a brand new team to rewrite a product's codebase from scratch. Completely free from ideology, changing everything at the same time just doesn't sound like a reliable method. How could you disentangle controls and variables in such a situation to figure out what happened? The new team often ends up either making the same mistakes as the old team, or brand new ones, and in the midst of such the tumult is when a movement is most vulnerable to being taken control of by bad actors. It is revolution, not leftism, that has this risk. A lot of people conflate being far to the left with being revolutionary, which is, of course, not true.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 1:54 PM on December 7, 2023 [5 favorites]
I don't think it's inevitable, but I dislike the idea of revolutionary change for the same reason I dislike bringing in a brand new team to rewrite a product's codebase from scratch. Completely free from ideology, changing everything at the same time just doesn't sound like a reliable method. How could you disentangle controls and variables in such a situation to figure out what happened? The new team often ends up either making the same mistakes as the old team, or brand new ones, and in the midst of such the tumult is when a movement is most vulnerable to being taken control of by bad actors. It is revolution, not leftism, that has this risk. A lot of people conflate being far to the left with being revolutionary, which is, of course, not true.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 1:54 PM on December 7, 2023 [5 favorites]
No one claimed leftism inevitably becomes authoritarian. But it has repeatedly in history. So has rightism. You need to familiarize yourself with Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer. We are discussing psychology here.
posted by njohnson23 at 2:12 PM on December 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 2:12 PM on December 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
Its yet another variation on the horseshoe theory nonsense, that the further left or right one goes the more authoritarian they become.
It's all about power allowed to be claimed by agents of truth in order to achieve utopian fantasies, appealing to our innate goodness but natural gullibility. The terrible results vary by approach. Control food production, starve your opponents. Control thought and media, demonize and torture some for confessions. Control militias, beat the different ones and cart them to death camps. All authoritarian points of power belong on the authoritarian spectrum only. We spent our entire agricultural evolution under the thumb of hereditary chieftains and their henchmen, who demanded strict loyalty and flattery, only recently finding brief alternatives on a mass scale.
posted by Brian B. at 2:17 PM on December 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
It's all about power allowed to be claimed by agents of truth in order to achieve utopian fantasies, appealing to our innate goodness but natural gullibility. The terrible results vary by approach. Control food production, starve your opponents. Control thought and media, demonize and torture some for confessions. Control militias, beat the different ones and cart them to death camps. All authoritarian points of power belong on the authoritarian spectrum only. We spent our entire agricultural evolution under the thumb of hereditary chieftains and their henchmen, who demanded strict loyalty and flattery, only recently finding brief alternatives on a mass scale.
posted by Brian B. at 2:17 PM on December 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
The claim was not that sometimes certain leftists can be authoritarian, the claim was that leftism inevitably becomes authoritarian and leads to genocide if you are a "true believer".
On re-reading the comment, that seems to be to be a rather bad-faith reading. I took his comment in the context of the larger conversation about "places at the table." I identified two major questions being debated in that conversation:
1. Why do the democrats appear not to listen to or care about leftist critiques and ideas?
2. How can leftists make it so that they do?
His answer to the first question is simply that the dems don't listen to "the left" because there aren't that many of them compared to the mushy middle, whose minds can theoretically be changed. He points out that "true believers" are rare as a rule regardless of ideology, then goes on to mull about how true believers have caused a lot of problems for everyone, historically, because the best way for them to get any traction with the "mushy middle" is to activate their emotions, specifically xenophobia and scapegoating. The line I saw him drawing was from "true believer" to "authoritarianism" to "genocide and other bad times" - regardless of ideology. I'm not sure totally where the sidebar links in, but I'd also rather let the poster clarify for himself than jump immediately to bad faith as an explanation. This is because no one is a perfect being and only computers can communicate with total clarity and understanding, and even then only to other computers.
His answer to the second is that he doesn't know, but given as the conservative true believers have got 40% the country on lock, it's probably time to spend less time fighting with other invested true believers and more time working out what's going to move the dial on the mush middle our way. A reasonable statement, imo.
My objection is to horseshoe nonsense and the slander that leftism is, or "true believers" in lefism are, inherently authoritarian. It's one of the most destructive and widespread political memes out there and one the liberals love to weaponize by trying to pretend that leftism is merely liberalism with the volume turned up to a dangerously authoritarian level.
See, this just sounds like you've made up a guy to be mad at, or are dragging in discourse from elseinternet.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 2:24 PM on December 7, 2023 [5 favorites]
On re-reading the comment, that seems to be to be a rather bad-faith reading. I took his comment in the context of the larger conversation about "places at the table." I identified two major questions being debated in that conversation:
1. Why do the democrats appear not to listen to or care about leftist critiques and ideas?
2. How can leftists make it so that they do?
His answer to the first question is simply that the dems don't listen to "the left" because there aren't that many of them compared to the mushy middle, whose minds can theoretically be changed. He points out that "true believers" are rare as a rule regardless of ideology, then goes on to mull about how true believers have caused a lot of problems for everyone, historically, because the best way for them to get any traction with the "mushy middle" is to activate their emotions, specifically xenophobia and scapegoating. The line I saw him drawing was from "true believer" to "authoritarianism" to "genocide and other bad times" - regardless of ideology. I'm not sure totally where the sidebar links in, but I'd also rather let the poster clarify for himself than jump immediately to bad faith as an explanation. This is because no one is a perfect being and only computers can communicate with total clarity and understanding, and even then only to other computers.
His answer to the second is that he doesn't know, but given as the conservative true believers have got 40% the country on lock, it's probably time to spend less time fighting with other invested true believers and more time working out what's going to move the dial on the mush middle our way. A reasonable statement, imo.
My objection is to horseshoe nonsense and the slander that leftism is, or "true believers" in lefism are, inherently authoritarian. It's one of the most destructive and widespread political memes out there and one the liberals love to weaponize by trying to pretend that leftism is merely liberalism with the volume turned up to a dangerously authoritarian level.
See, this just sounds like you've made up a guy to be mad at, or are dragging in discourse from elseinternet.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 2:24 PM on December 7, 2023 [5 favorites]
Well, I don't think I either overreacted or maliciously read comments, but I'm not going to contiunue to argue it as clearly that's the consensus here so arguing it would just be obnoxious.
I'll proceed on the assumption that I was 100% wrong and no one was taking cheap shots at the left.
posted by sotonohito at 3:10 PM on December 7, 2023
I'll proceed on the assumption that I was 100% wrong and no one was taking cheap shots at the left.
posted by sotonohito at 3:10 PM on December 7, 2023
Meanwhile, Trump has gone on national television promising only to be a dictator for one day.
Just getting him to crack was a start. Now the mainstream media might begin asking his followers what they expect during their evangelical reign of terror.
posted by Brian B. at 3:57 PM on December 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
Just getting him to crack was a start. Now the mainstream media might begin asking his followers what they expect during their evangelical reign of terror.
posted by Brian B. at 3:57 PM on December 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
Ad hominem statements using words like slander, vicious, nonsense, lies, etc are not conducive to civil discourse. There were no cheap shots. We are dealing with some very serious issues here and no one has the definitive answers to any of it. Anyone here can politely disagree, or even impolitely agree. But we have to have open discussions where anyone can speak without the fear of being maligned as a vicious, vile liar. Yes, people can be impassioned about their views. And people can be very critical about other people’s views. It all lies in how you chose to express either. We need to save our anger for those who appear to be the real subjects of this discussion, those vicious, vile liars known as the Republican Party.
posted by njohnson23 at 4:12 PM on December 7, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 4:12 PM on December 7, 2023 [5 favorites]
Liberalism seeks to reform hierarchy.
Leftism seeks to abolish hierarchy.
That fundamental disagreement is why liberals often hate the left in a way they do not hate the far right. Because liberals and the far right are in agreement on that same core level that they are in disagreement with the left.
Their disagreement is about how oppressive and cruel the hierarchy should be: liberals want a less cruel hierarchy, the far right wants a more cruel hierarchy. They are united in the belief that hierarchy is some combination of necessary, good, inevitable, or stable.
Both are united in the belief that leftists are dangerous advocates of chaos, destruction, civil unrest, and likely the end of civilization itself.
Which is probably the explanation for the slanders and lies that fill this thread. The left is evil, authoritarianism is evil, so therefore the left must be authoritarian.
This is a rather extreme collection of reductionist/essentializing takes on "liberals" and "leftists" -- two groups between which I don't believe there actually exists a hard, bright line -- and an absurdly awful misrepresentation of the substantive discussion of the risks of authoritarianism in left-wing circles that has been laid out above.
I and others have already explained in detail how we have seen a certain amount of authoritarian thinking creeping into some -- some -- elements of the left.
Nobody has said anything remotely resembling your last 2 paragraphs.
I don't know if you're just not taking the time to try to understand the arguments being put forward, or you're just so angry that you want to insult people and make exaggerated claims about their arguments. Either way, I see no point in continuing to engage with you on this.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:45 PM on December 7, 2023 [6 favorites]
Leftism seeks to abolish hierarchy.
That fundamental disagreement is why liberals often hate the left in a way they do not hate the far right. Because liberals and the far right are in agreement on that same core level that they are in disagreement with the left.
Their disagreement is about how oppressive and cruel the hierarchy should be: liberals want a less cruel hierarchy, the far right wants a more cruel hierarchy. They are united in the belief that hierarchy is some combination of necessary, good, inevitable, or stable.
Both are united in the belief that leftists are dangerous advocates of chaos, destruction, civil unrest, and likely the end of civilization itself.
Which is probably the explanation for the slanders and lies that fill this thread. The left is evil, authoritarianism is evil, so therefore the left must be authoritarian.
This is a rather extreme collection of reductionist/essentializing takes on "liberals" and "leftists" -- two groups between which I don't believe there actually exists a hard, bright line -- and an absurdly awful misrepresentation of the substantive discussion of the risks of authoritarianism in left-wing circles that has been laid out above.
I and others have already explained in detail how we have seen a certain amount of authoritarian thinking creeping into some -- some -- elements of the left.
Nobody has said anything remotely resembling your last 2 paragraphs.
I don't know if you're just not taking the time to try to understand the arguments being put forward, or you're just so angry that you want to insult people and make exaggerated claims about their arguments. Either way, I see no point in continuing to engage with you on this.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:45 PM on December 7, 2023 [6 favorites]
It's interesting, though US politics in general are far to the right of politics in Europe, the far left is further left and less inclined towards compromise than most European far left parties. I mostly vote as far left as is possible here, and some of the stuff people write here on the blue are shocking to me. I wonder why it is like that?
Thinking a bit further, there is something similar going on in the UK, so it might have to do with the two-party system that comes out of the electoral systems?
Meanwhile, Trump has gone on national television promising only to be a dictator for one day.
The interesting thing about that passage is that Hannity gave him a friendly leading question, to let him deny his totalitarian ambitions, and he didn't. And then Hannity tried to gloss over what he said.
I'm guessing that totalitarian rule is A-OK with the trump base, but might be less so with a lot of other republicans and republican-leaning independents. And Liz Cheney is doing the rounds these days and no one can accuse her of being an anti-American radical left communist.
What I'm saying, perhaps too optimistically, is that there seems to be a bit of crumbling at the edges now.
Trump needs to win, because if he doesn't, it is very likely he will loose a lot of his US assets in the NY tax fraud ruling. But his desperation is beginning to show, and Cheney is reminding Republicans about their legacies. I feel Kevin McCarthy dropping out of politics has something to do with this. He has no legacy to save, but that also means there is no reason for him to stay on when he can find a job that is better paid.
posted by mumimor at 12:40 AM on December 8, 2023 [5 favorites]
Thinking a bit further, there is something similar going on in the UK, so it might have to do with the two-party system that comes out of the electoral systems?
Meanwhile, Trump has gone on national television promising only to be a dictator for one day.
The interesting thing about that passage is that Hannity gave him a friendly leading question, to let him deny his totalitarian ambitions, and he didn't. And then Hannity tried to gloss over what he said.
I'm guessing that totalitarian rule is A-OK with the trump base, but might be less so with a lot of other republicans and republican-leaning independents. And Liz Cheney is doing the rounds these days and no one can accuse her of being an anti-American radical left communist.
What I'm saying, perhaps too optimistically, is that there seems to be a bit of crumbling at the edges now.
Trump needs to win, because if he doesn't, it is very likely he will loose a lot of his US assets in the NY tax fraud ruling. But his desperation is beginning to show, and Cheney is reminding Republicans about their legacies. I feel Kevin McCarthy dropping out of politics has something to do with this. He has no legacy to save, but that also means there is no reason for him to stay on when he can find a job that is better paid.
posted by mumimor at 12:40 AM on December 8, 2023 [5 favorites]
Reading how this conversation has evolved/devolved, I would have to say that if anyone finds themselves reiterating their points with increasing defensiveness, it's probably time to just do something else. I am beginning to believe conversations like this one have a limited shelf life beyond which nothing useful can be said, if indeed anything useful was said at all, ever.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:43 AM on December 8, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:43 AM on December 8, 2023 [2 favorites]
> I mostly vote as far left as is possible here, and some of the stuff people write here on the blue are shocking to me. I wonder why it is like that?
Maybe it's because the far left in the US is so far away from electoral viability at the party level, it is unbound by the moderating influence of trying to attract the Median Voter. In Europe, far left parties might have a chance of winning some measure of power, but not here.
Or maybe it's something else. Maybe it's America's weak parties (backbenchers aren't picked by frontbenchers), combined with the extremist pull that primary elections cause (primaries are decided by the extremes of both parties, because they're the ones who can be bothered to vote in them). Safe seats combined with low-turnout primary elections cut out the middle from the general election.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 5:47 AM on December 8, 2023 [4 favorites]
Maybe it's because the far left in the US is so far away from electoral viability at the party level, it is unbound by the moderating influence of trying to attract the Median Voter. In Europe, far left parties might have a chance of winning some measure of power, but not here.
Or maybe it's something else. Maybe it's America's weak parties (backbenchers aren't picked by frontbenchers), combined with the extremist pull that primary elections cause (primaries are decided by the extremes of both parties, because they're the ones who can be bothered to vote in them). Safe seats combined with low-turnout primary elections cut out the middle from the general election.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 5:47 AM on December 8, 2023 [4 favorites]
“Donald Trump, American Dictator,” Thomas Zimmer, Democracy Americana, 08 December 2023
Nothing is ever inevitable. But every political analysis needs to start from the recognition that there is an eminently plausible - and fairly straightforward - path from here to autocratic rule.posted by ob1quixote at 6:22 AM on December 8, 2023 [4 favorites]
“The Authoritarianism Is The Point, Part II,” Daniel W. Drezner, Drezner’s World, 08 December 2023
posted by ob1quixote at 6:27 AM on December 8, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 6:27 AM on December 8, 2023 [2 favorites]
Thinking a bit further, there is something similar going on in the UK, so it might have to do with the two-party system that comes out of the electoral systems?
It does indeed. Leftists in the US are often dead weight in elections when facing a conservative leaning district, because they don't support a placeholder liberal who pivots right for a majority (locally and nationally), while conservatives campaign against leftism, so a double bind. Being practical in politics in order to elect someone not right-wing but not left wing is anathema to righteous indignation.
Their disagreement is about how oppressive and cruel the hierarchy should be: liberals want a less cruel hierarchy, the far right wants a more cruel hierarchy. They are united in the belief that hierarchy is some combination of necessary, good, inevitable, or stable.
Liberals aren't so theoretical about hierarchy and as far as I can remember, most liberals have had to bend over backwards to explain how they aren't communists. Liberals are united about healthcare and a safety net, but rarely communism, which they believe has failed in practice each time by way of a corrupt hierarchy. Please just use the word communism if that's what you are describing, which we all know to be a command economy, which is a hierarchy.
One more stab at the fake political spectrum: It functions as a tower for leftists by putting themselves at the opposite end of evil fascism. So after drawing a line that represents charity in order to connect the dots of politics, they assume that more of something good must be better, a basic fallacy. Same tendency libertarians do with pure capitalism. We shouldn't ignore that fascists usually came to power by capping prices as populists, causing the same shortages as communism did. Cures are worse than the disease in systemic magical thinking.
posted by Brian B. at 8:20 AM on December 8, 2023 [4 favorites]
It does indeed. Leftists in the US are often dead weight in elections when facing a conservative leaning district, because they don't support a placeholder liberal who pivots right for a majority (locally and nationally), while conservatives campaign against leftism, so a double bind. Being practical in politics in order to elect someone not right-wing but not left wing is anathema to righteous indignation.
Their disagreement is about how oppressive and cruel the hierarchy should be: liberals want a less cruel hierarchy, the far right wants a more cruel hierarchy. They are united in the belief that hierarchy is some combination of necessary, good, inevitable, or stable.
Liberals aren't so theoretical about hierarchy and as far as I can remember, most liberals have had to bend over backwards to explain how they aren't communists. Liberals are united about healthcare and a safety net, but rarely communism, which they believe has failed in practice each time by way of a corrupt hierarchy. Please just use the word communism if that's what you are describing, which we all know to be a command economy, which is a hierarchy.
One more stab at the fake political spectrum: It functions as a tower for leftists by putting themselves at the opposite end of evil fascism. So after drawing a line that represents charity in order to connect the dots of politics, they assume that more of something good must be better, a basic fallacy. Same tendency libertarians do with pure capitalism. We shouldn't ignore that fascists usually came to power by capping prices as populists, causing the same shortages as communism did. Cures are worse than the disease in systemic magical thinking.
posted by Brian B. at 8:20 AM on December 8, 2023 [4 favorites]
There's a reason Hitler called his party National Socialists. And it worked.
posted by mumimor at 8:25 AM on December 8, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 8:25 AM on December 8, 2023 [3 favorites]
My apologies, the last two paragraphs in my last post are not quotes, but my comments. I will endeavor to fix it.
posted by Brian B. at 8:26 AM on December 8, 2023
posted by Brian B. at 8:26 AM on December 8, 2023
How an Ohio Senator's Stunt Proves the Trump Dictatorship Theory WaPo gift link
posted by mumimor at 10:37 AM on December 8, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 10:37 AM on December 8, 2023 [3 favorites]
Brian B.
Liberals aren't so theoretical about hierarchy
Most people seldom get into the weeds on the origins, definitions of, and theory of political ideology. People often tend towards certain positions without really thinking deeply about the theoretical underpinnings of those positions or why one appeals while the other does not.
The definition of right as pro-hierarchy and left as anti-hierarchy is not mine, it's the standard definition that has been in use in political science since around 1789. Don't take my word for it, here's the Wikipedia pages for Left Wing Politics and Right Wing Politics, you will note they use the same definiitons I do. If you open any intro to political science textbook you'll find the same definitions.
The colloquial uses of the terms tend to be more about relative positions on a hypothetical spectrum centered on a hypothetical middle for a given nation. So it's entirely correct to describe Joe Biden as being both left (in the colloquial/relative sense) and right (in the absolute/polisci sense).
This is especially sensitive/weird/touchy/emotional in the US because the colloqual meanings have become almosst the only times people ever see the terms and because most people in the Democratic Party see "right" as an insult and feel that they are being derided or mocked when anyone uses that term to refer to liberalism or the Democratic Party.
Please just use the word communism if that's what you are describing,
As I've demonstrated, it is not what i'm describing. While Communism is a leftist political ideology, it is not the only leftist political ideology.
One more stab at the fake political spectrum: It functions as a tower for leftists by putting themselves at the opposite end of evil fascism
Fascism is very much a right wing political ideology, as demonstrated by its use of actual titles of nobility in many of its instances as well as a generally hierarchal view of the world with a master race on top and everyone else below that.
However, you're trying to paint a picture of the left attempting to claim that evil cannot exist in leftism and putting the blame for all evil on the right. Obvuiously you do run into a few leftists who like to pretend that, but it's not why leftists talk about Fascism as right wing.
Moreover, most leftists (except Tankies [1]) will be perfectly willing to admit evil can and has existed on the left, and even that specifically authoritarian evil has and does.
Hitler was not a leftist, but Stalin and Mao were. And I again, aside from a tiny scattering of Tankies you're not going to find many leftists who are in favor of either nor try to defend any of the evils their authoritarian leftist regimes committed. So no, correctly labeling Fascism as a right wing ideology (and a very specific one at that [2]) is not any sort of defensive measure among leftists to try and position leftism as perfect. Hitler was right wing. Stalin was left wing.
We can see one obvious example of leftism in Stalin's authoritarian rule with the reflexive use of "comrade" as a prefix, ostensibly to put everyone on the same social level regardless of the managerial or military authority they had.
We shouldn't ignore that fascists usually came to power by capping prices as populists
Price controls were not an essential part of Fascism, nor a feature in all instances of Fascism, but populism definitely was. It's important to remember that Fasicsm was not devoted to any particular economic theory or structure. It was not Capitalist nor Communist, it was whatever gets us power-ist.
However, while no economic philosophy was essential to Fascism you are quite correct that one of the distinguishing features was populism. It's not the only populist form of right wing authoritarianism but it is one of only a handful.
Most right wing authoritarian ideologies tend to feature a narrow set of elites who are supposed to be at the top of the hierarchy. Fascism promises its followers that they are the natural, destined, top of the pyramid on a planetary scale. It says that in comparison to the lesser people they are like unto gods and that after their people conquer the world the least among the chosen people will live as gods each one ruling over hordes of lesser people.
But populism is not inherently left or right.
*********************
As for leftism in America, you're conflating leftism with idealism. There ARE idealistic leftists, but there are also pragmatic leftists. I take the latter approach becuase philosophically I tend towards consiquentialism.
If my only options are a lesser evil or a greater evil, the only moral option is the lesser evil. Which is why while I do not like or even much agree with the Democratic Party I always vote for Democrats even when it makes my soul hurt. If I lived in West Virginia I'd vote for Joe Fucking Manchin over his Republican opponent and I have an intense hatred for Manchin.
Other leftists take a more idealistic approach and I think they're foolish for doing so. I'm sure that's a factor in the rejection of leftism by Democrats as a whole, but I don't think it's the major factor.
[1] "Tankie" is a derisive term among leftists to refer to genuine leftist authoritarians, generally those who support or are apologists for Stalinism. The term originates from Stalin sending in tanks to suppress the Hungarian revolution and the original tankies saying it was a good thing.
[2] While in colloquial use people tend to say Fascist when referring to anyone or anything authoritarian, Fascism does refer to a particular form of right wing authoritarinism characterized by the particular mythology it uses as the justification for its hierarchy.
Roger Griffin described Fascism as palingenetic ultranationalism which is a lovely phrase that unfortunately requires its own defintions....
Palingenesis is the idea of an apocalyptic rebirth and restoration to glory.
The myth Fascism uses is that once "we" (whoever the Fascist is appealing to) ruled the world like unto gods because we're just that much better than everyone else, but we were cast down and now live in ignomy. But one day we shall rise up in fire and blood to reclaim our birthright, rule as gods once more, and lead humanity to a golden age. And if we do not, we will be utterly eradicated. Fascism tells its followers that the only two choices are total conquest or extinction.
posted by sotonohito at 10:42 AM on December 8, 2023 [8 favorites]
Liberals aren't so theoretical about hierarchy
Most people seldom get into the weeds on the origins, definitions of, and theory of political ideology. People often tend towards certain positions without really thinking deeply about the theoretical underpinnings of those positions or why one appeals while the other does not.
The definition of right as pro-hierarchy and left as anti-hierarchy is not mine, it's the standard definition that has been in use in political science since around 1789. Don't take my word for it, here's the Wikipedia pages for Left Wing Politics and Right Wing Politics, you will note they use the same definiitons I do. If you open any intro to political science textbook you'll find the same definitions.
The colloquial uses of the terms tend to be more about relative positions on a hypothetical spectrum centered on a hypothetical middle for a given nation. So it's entirely correct to describe Joe Biden as being both left (in the colloquial/relative sense) and right (in the absolute/polisci sense).
This is especially sensitive/weird/touchy/emotional in the US because the colloqual meanings have become almosst the only times people ever see the terms and because most people in the Democratic Party see "right" as an insult and feel that they are being derided or mocked when anyone uses that term to refer to liberalism or the Democratic Party.
Please just use the word communism if that's what you are describing,
As I've demonstrated, it is not what i'm describing. While Communism is a leftist political ideology, it is not the only leftist political ideology.
One more stab at the fake political spectrum: It functions as a tower for leftists by putting themselves at the opposite end of evil fascism
Fascism is very much a right wing political ideology, as demonstrated by its use of actual titles of nobility in many of its instances as well as a generally hierarchal view of the world with a master race on top and everyone else below that.
However, you're trying to paint a picture of the left attempting to claim that evil cannot exist in leftism and putting the blame for all evil on the right. Obvuiously you do run into a few leftists who like to pretend that, but it's not why leftists talk about Fascism as right wing.
Moreover, most leftists (except Tankies [1]) will be perfectly willing to admit evil can and has existed on the left, and even that specifically authoritarian evil has and does.
Hitler was not a leftist, but Stalin and Mao were. And I again, aside from a tiny scattering of Tankies you're not going to find many leftists who are in favor of either nor try to defend any of the evils their authoritarian leftist regimes committed. So no, correctly labeling Fascism as a right wing ideology (and a very specific one at that [2]) is not any sort of defensive measure among leftists to try and position leftism as perfect. Hitler was right wing. Stalin was left wing.
We can see one obvious example of leftism in Stalin's authoritarian rule with the reflexive use of "comrade" as a prefix, ostensibly to put everyone on the same social level regardless of the managerial or military authority they had.
We shouldn't ignore that fascists usually came to power by capping prices as populists
Price controls were not an essential part of Fascism, nor a feature in all instances of Fascism, but populism definitely was. It's important to remember that Fasicsm was not devoted to any particular economic theory or structure. It was not Capitalist nor Communist, it was whatever gets us power-ist.
However, while no economic philosophy was essential to Fascism you are quite correct that one of the distinguishing features was populism. It's not the only populist form of right wing authoritarianism but it is one of only a handful.
Most right wing authoritarian ideologies tend to feature a narrow set of elites who are supposed to be at the top of the hierarchy. Fascism promises its followers that they are the natural, destined, top of the pyramid on a planetary scale. It says that in comparison to the lesser people they are like unto gods and that after their people conquer the world the least among the chosen people will live as gods each one ruling over hordes of lesser people.
But populism is not inherently left or right.
*********************
As for leftism in America, you're conflating leftism with idealism. There ARE idealistic leftists, but there are also pragmatic leftists. I take the latter approach becuase philosophically I tend towards consiquentialism.
If my only options are a lesser evil or a greater evil, the only moral option is the lesser evil. Which is why while I do not like or even much agree with the Democratic Party I always vote for Democrats even when it makes my soul hurt. If I lived in West Virginia I'd vote for Joe Fucking Manchin over his Republican opponent and I have an intense hatred for Manchin.
Other leftists take a more idealistic approach and I think they're foolish for doing so. I'm sure that's a factor in the rejection of leftism by Democrats as a whole, but I don't think it's the major factor.
[1] "Tankie" is a derisive term among leftists to refer to genuine leftist authoritarians, generally those who support or are apologists for Stalinism. The term originates from Stalin sending in tanks to suppress the Hungarian revolution and the original tankies saying it was a good thing.
[2] While in colloquial use people tend to say Fascist when referring to anyone or anything authoritarian, Fascism does refer to a particular form of right wing authoritarinism characterized by the particular mythology it uses as the justification for its hierarchy.
Roger Griffin described Fascism as palingenetic ultranationalism which is a lovely phrase that unfortunately requires its own defintions....
Palingenesis is the idea of an apocalyptic rebirth and restoration to glory.
The myth Fascism uses is that once "we" (whoever the Fascist is appealing to) ruled the world like unto gods because we're just that much better than everyone else, but we were cast down and now live in ignomy. But one day we shall rise up in fire and blood to reclaim our birthright, rule as gods once more, and lead humanity to a golden age. And if we do not, we will be utterly eradicated. Fascism tells its followers that the only two choices are total conquest or extinction.
posted by sotonohito at 10:42 AM on December 8, 2023 [8 favorites]
> The myth Fascism uses is that once "we" (whoever the Fascist is appealing to) ruled the world like unto gods because we're just that much better than everyone else, but we were cast down and now live in ignomy. But one day we shall rise up in fire and blood to reclaim our birthright, rule as gods once more, and lead humanity to a golden age.
This is an idea I've encountered in Tim Snyder's work quite frequently. He spends a lot of effort dissecting the different attitudes that regimes have towards Time, and the basic framework of the stories that they tell about it. The loss of innocence and the rebirth of the nation are in there. In the authoritarian regime, time comes to a stop because there is no hope for a future, only an eternal now. Time to go review those again, because I've become rusty on the way he describes it in full.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 10:54 AM on December 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
This is an idea I've encountered in Tim Snyder's work quite frequently. He spends a lot of effort dissecting the different attitudes that regimes have towards Time, and the basic framework of the stories that they tell about it. The loss of innocence and the rebirth of the nation are in there. In the authoritarian regime, time comes to a stop because there is no hope for a future, only an eternal now. Time to go review those again, because I've become rusty on the way he describes it in full.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 10:54 AM on December 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
Dec 6, 2016: Timothy Snyder - "What Can European History Teach Us About Trump’s America?"
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:04 AM on December 8, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:04 AM on December 8, 2023 [3 favorites]
The one above is mostly on how to think about history where he introduces the Politics of Inevitability and the Politics of Eternity, but I don't think he discusses the shapes of stories that nations tell about themselves. Here is the one I was thinking of where he does that. I think this one is better.
Sep 7, 2022: Timothy Snyder: The Making of Modern Ukraine. Class 2: The Genesis of Nations
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:42 AM on December 8, 2023 [3 favorites]
Sep 7, 2022: Timothy Snyder: The Making of Modern Ukraine. Class 2: The Genesis of Nations
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:42 AM on December 8, 2023 [3 favorites]
I don't think I've read/watched any Tim Snyder, I'll have to check him out, thanks!
I was summarizing Roger Griffin's explanation of the term (which he invented) in his book The Nature of Fascism, but I'd strongly recommend his book as he does a much better job of it than I can. I should have cited the book directly rather than just saying it was his definiiton.
posted by sotonohito at 11:52 AM on December 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
I was summarizing Roger Griffin's explanation of the term (which he invented) in his book The Nature of Fascism, but I'd strongly recommend his book as he does a much better job of it than I can. I should have cited the book directly rather than just saying it was his definiiton.
posted by sotonohito at 11:52 AM on December 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
But I’m not sure it really counts as the same thing when my fantasy is that if such power fell into my hands somehow, I’d redistribute that power as equitably as possible/more equitably than power is currently distributed
It absolutely does! Don't you wish you could just wave your hand and make that be so?! I sure do!
You might be the most benevolent and short lived authoritarian dictator ever but for that brief moment you dictated some stuff. It doesn't mean you think it should actually happen or anything like that. But it's pretty normal to want someone to just set things up the way you personally think things should be.
I think too that some of what drives folks to support democracy is a subconscious understanding of that desire and damage that it would and has done in reality. Holding two competing ideas in our heads is totally human too. I can both very much wish I could just have absolute power to fix things while also understanding what a terrible idea that is.
posted by VTX at 3:12 PM on December 8, 2023 [4 favorites]
It absolutely does! Don't you wish you could just wave your hand and make that be so?! I sure do!
You might be the most benevolent and short lived authoritarian dictator ever but for that brief moment you dictated some stuff. It doesn't mean you think it should actually happen or anything like that. But it's pretty normal to want someone to just set things up the way you personally think things should be.
I think too that some of what drives folks to support democracy is a subconscious understanding of that desire and damage that it would and has done in reality. Holding two competing ideas in our heads is totally human too. I can both very much wish I could just have absolute power to fix things while also understanding what a terrible idea that is.
posted by VTX at 3:12 PM on December 8, 2023 [4 favorites]
Cf., “The Revenge of ‘the Other Half’: Lessons From the Netherlands,” Ewald Engelen, The Political Quarterly, 30 November 2023
posted by ob1quixote at 4:29 PM on December 8, 2023
posted by ob1quixote at 4:29 PM on December 8, 2023
The Revenge of ‘the Other Half’: Lessons From the Netherlands,
Stop insulting culturally conservative voters over their unwillingness to adopt the latest linguistic fashions developed at US-based Ivy League universities
So the first step is throwing queer people under the bus? I'm *shocked*to hear that, truly shocked.
Going by past Democratic candidates though, well, I think Americans will be onboard with that. HRC is still the poster girl, right?
posted by Audreynachrome at 12:22 AM on December 9, 2023 [6 favorites]
Stop insulting culturally conservative voters over their unwillingness to adopt the latest linguistic fashions developed at US-based Ivy League universities
So the first step is throwing queer people under the bus? I'm *shocked*to hear that, truly shocked.
Going by past Democratic candidates though, well, I think Americans will be onboard with that. HRC is still the poster girl, right?
posted by Audreynachrome at 12:22 AM on December 9, 2023 [6 favorites]
Lessons From the Netherlands
The Danish People's Party/DF (hard right nationalists, but not fascist) had a similar surge some years ago, and for some reason neither their own analysts or the mainstream political analysts noticed that all their gains were in a region where the more traditional right wing party, Venstre, had been exposed as incredibly corrupt. When Venstre straightened up, and another scandal was unearthed in DF, the surge disappeared almost overnight. I'm not saying that is what happened in The Netherlands, because I have no idea, I am saying that political analysts, inside and out of the universities, sometimes seem weirdly blind to what is happening right in front of them.
posted by mumimor at 7:56 AM on December 9, 2023 [4 favorites]
The Danish People's Party/DF (hard right nationalists, but not fascist) had a similar surge some years ago, and for some reason neither their own analysts or the mainstream political analysts noticed that all their gains were in a region where the more traditional right wing party, Venstre, had been exposed as incredibly corrupt. When Venstre straightened up, and another scandal was unearthed in DF, the surge disappeared almost overnight. I'm not saying that is what happened in The Netherlands, because I have no idea, I am saying that political analysts, inside and out of the universities, sometimes seem weirdly blind to what is happening right in front of them.
posted by mumimor at 7:56 AM on December 9, 2023 [4 favorites]
Stop insulting culturally conservative voters over their unwillingness to adopt the latest linguistic fashions developed at US-based Ivy League universities
But things like low taxes, maximizing shareholder value, industry consolidation, and other business fashions shall be fait accompli.
posted by rhizome at 8:26 PM on December 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
But things like low taxes, maximizing shareholder value, industry consolidation, and other business fashions shall be fait accompli.
posted by rhizome at 8:26 PM on December 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
As for leftism in America, you're conflating leftism with idealism. There ARE idealistic leftists, but there are also pragmatic leftists.
There's the rub then, two stages of development. Collective dreams are less threatening at first because they don't have a system in place, but pragmatists step in after realizing how brutal they must become to realize the fantasy of delivering goods from the top down. When any belief doesn't deliver, measures are takes over to fake it or misreport it, with opposition eliminated and critical expression used against the authors and artists to condemn them. It is impossible to avoid idealism when it must be sold as a theory. And only an idealist would claim that North Korean dictatorship wasn't planned in theory when mythologized dictatorship was guaranteed to happen when those impacted refused to believe that its failure was a success. That's where the brainwashing comes in, so that idealism becomes the reality. It's what happens when we somehow believe in an abstract right and left of real power.
posted by Brian B. at 8:07 AM on December 10, 2023
There's the rub then, two stages of development. Collective dreams are less threatening at first because they don't have a system in place, but pragmatists step in after realizing how brutal they must become to realize the fantasy of delivering goods from the top down. When any belief doesn't deliver, measures are takes over to fake it or misreport it, with opposition eliminated and critical expression used against the authors and artists to condemn them. It is impossible to avoid idealism when it must be sold as a theory. And only an idealist would claim that North Korean dictatorship wasn't planned in theory when mythologized dictatorship was guaranteed to happen when those impacted refused to believe that its failure was a success. That's where the brainwashing comes in, so that idealism becomes the reality. It's what happens when we somehow believe in an abstract right and left of real power.
posted by Brian B. at 8:07 AM on December 10, 2023
Stop insulting culturally conservative voters over their unwillingness to adopt the latest linguistic fashions developed at US-based Ivy League universities
Damn that's a cruelly snide and dismissive way to say "throw minorities under the bus in an effort to appeal to bigots".
And, I might add, an effort to appeal to bigots that has never worked in the entire history of the universe. You can't trick a Republican into voting Democratic by presenting as a fake Republican. They have the real Republican Party to vote for, they will never vote for a Democrat posing as a Republican. Swap party names for the appropriate parties in any particular country and it's the same.
Every election the Democrats lose, or under perform, or even win, we get the Very Serious people telling everyone that to survive the Democrats must abandon minorities and start trying to appeal to Republican voters. Which completely ignores the part that a) you can't get a Republican to vote Democratic, and b) shitting on minorities makes them less likely to vote Democratic even in a time of existential threat.
Like the little boy who cried wolf, the Democrats have overplayed the "ZOMG if you don't Vote Blue No Matter Who then America might well turn into a tyranny" card and now that we really are facing that possibility a lot of people have heard it so many times, and gotten nothing but further abuse from Democrats by voting Democratic so many times, they don't care.
I'll also note that America is ALREADY a tyranny if you're a minority. You can't threaten someone with their current state of affairs.
And yet, as always, instead of thinking that perhaps they should EARN the minority vote, Democrats just demand it and start preemptively blaming minorities for Trump's victory because the minorities wouldn't vote hard enough for the Party that threw them under the bus to appeal to suburban and exurban bigots.
I'm asking seriously here, do the Democrats actually like losing? Is there some sort of institutional masochism going on here?
Brian B. I'm sorry I don't know what you're trying to say there. It almost sounds like you're arguing that any effort to change the status quo is inevitably violent and therefore bad, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.
And where did the DPRK enter the picture? No one but the fringe even among Tankies thinks the DPRK is anything but an example of authoritarian awfulness.
posted by sotonohito at 10:39 AM on December 10, 2023 [8 favorites]
Damn that's a cruelly snide and dismissive way to say "throw minorities under the bus in an effort to appeal to bigots".
And, I might add, an effort to appeal to bigots that has never worked in the entire history of the universe. You can't trick a Republican into voting Democratic by presenting as a fake Republican. They have the real Republican Party to vote for, they will never vote for a Democrat posing as a Republican. Swap party names for the appropriate parties in any particular country and it's the same.
Every election the Democrats lose, or under perform, or even win, we get the Very Serious people telling everyone that to survive the Democrats must abandon minorities and start trying to appeal to Republican voters. Which completely ignores the part that a) you can't get a Republican to vote Democratic, and b) shitting on minorities makes them less likely to vote Democratic even in a time of existential threat.
Like the little boy who cried wolf, the Democrats have overplayed the "ZOMG if you don't Vote Blue No Matter Who then America might well turn into a tyranny" card and now that we really are facing that possibility a lot of people have heard it so many times, and gotten nothing but further abuse from Democrats by voting Democratic so many times, they don't care.
I'll also note that America is ALREADY a tyranny if you're a minority. You can't threaten someone with their current state of affairs.
And yet, as always, instead of thinking that perhaps they should EARN the minority vote, Democrats just demand it and start preemptively blaming minorities for Trump's victory because the minorities wouldn't vote hard enough for the Party that threw them under the bus to appeal to suburban and exurban bigots.
I'm asking seriously here, do the Democrats actually like losing? Is there some sort of institutional masochism going on here?
Brian B. I'm sorry I don't know what you're trying to say there. It almost sounds like you're arguing that any effort to change the status quo is inevitably violent and therefore bad, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.
And where did the DPRK enter the picture? No one but the fringe even among Tankies thinks the DPRK is anything but an example of authoritarian awfulness.
posted by sotonohito at 10:39 AM on December 10, 2023 [8 favorites]
And where did the DPRK enter the picture?
As a handy example. Point being that an author or maker of any project, social or otherwise, cannot determine its end use or meaning.
posted by Brian B. at 11:22 AM on December 10, 2023 [1 favorite]
As a handy example. Point being that an author or maker of any project, social or otherwise, cannot determine its end use or meaning.
posted by Brian B. at 11:22 AM on December 10, 2023 [1 favorite]
Don't you wish you could just wave your hand and make that be so?!
No. And imputing your thoughts and motivations to others is quite rude and frowned upon here.
posted by eviemath at 4:15 AM on December 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
No. And imputing your thoughts and motivations to others is quite rude and frowned upon here.
posted by eviemath at 4:15 AM on December 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
Polling shows Biden lagging in several swing states [1] he took in 2020, which is terrifying and predictable. Like Democrats have for my entire life they're failing to do what thier voters want because they're doing what their rich donors want.
You can't please both billionaires and the proletariat, and the Democrats always choose the billionaires then wonder why the ungrateful proles aren't voting for them. And of course, Biden's relentless pro-genocide cheerleading for Israel isn't helping any.
The part where the Democrats keep gaslighting us and telling us the economy is doing super duper swell and we should believe them instead of our own lying eyes doesn't help much either.
Just like the Democrats seem to think the best way to get leftists to vote is to scold them, they seem to think they can make everyone think the economy is doing great by scolding them for not cheerleading hard enough and they'll be shamed into saying they think the economy is very very good.
And here's the thing: there are some indicators the economy is good, but if people don't feel that the economy is good all the stats in the world don't matter. I'm fairly sure the biggie here is rent, plus the greedflation on staple items.
Even if (and I don't think it's true) that most people have gotten raises that put them with more purchasing power than they had in 2020 despite the higher rent and prices, just the sticker shock of having rent that's 50% higher is going to make people feel poorer. Add to that going to the grocery store and spending a fortune for a tiny handful of groceries and you've got a double whammy.
You can't scold people out of that. And all the graphs in the world showing lines going up aren't going to make people feel better about a sudden 50% increase in rent.
The Democrats ESPECIALLY can't make people feel better economically by talking about the fucking stock market. No one gives a shit about the stock market except billionaires and tryhard wannabes who think they can become billionaires one day. Most people hear "Dow Jones average" and either go to sleep or get angry, but they damn sure don't think "gee, the Davy Jones thingie is going up so I guess the part where I'm payin 50% more in rent doens't matter!"
I don't know what Biden could do about any of that. Especially considering most of condescending lecturing scolding is coming from non-official pundits and advocates.
Joe Biden isn't personally telling me I'm an idiot because I don't think the economy is fantastic. It's this entire army of mostly unpaid intenet types who feel that their mission in life is to be as sneeringly condescinding and aggressive as possible to anyone who isn't cheerleading the supposedly fantastic Biden economy. If they'd STFU, or at least admit that higher rent and higher prices overall make us feel bad about the economy and that's valid, I think it'd help a lot.
Of course, we've got nearly a year before the elections, and voters have shitty memory. If Biden can curb is obsessive need to kiss Likud ass and tell us that genocide is the best thing ever as long as it's the IDF doing it then by election day the sting of his pro-genocide actions will have faded. Same on the economy, if it either really doess start improving [2] or if at least the unofficial Democratic boosters will stop being so obnoxious about insisting that we must pretend with them that it has, that could stop hurting him now.
But I really don't comprehend how any Democratic politician can look at the polling today and think that what they're doing is working.
Brian B. I'm sorry I"m not following. We can't predict what might happen with ideas, the DRPK exists, so therefore we should never try to think of anything or do anything because it might lead to the DPRK?
I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying, but i'm having a difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying.
[1] And maybe I'm just bitter, but I hate that fucking term and wish we'd be honest and just say "the states that really matter and everyone else can go Musk themselves". Unless you live in one of a tiny handful of states you just plain don't matter.
[2] Lulz, yeah right. The only thing that will make the economy better is billionaires stealing less of our labor and that's never going to happen without truly radical policy changes that no liberal will ever support.
posted by sotonohito at 6:47 AM on December 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
You can't please both billionaires and the proletariat, and the Democrats always choose the billionaires then wonder why the ungrateful proles aren't voting for them. And of course, Biden's relentless pro-genocide cheerleading for Israel isn't helping any.
The part where the Democrats keep gaslighting us and telling us the economy is doing super duper swell and we should believe them instead of our own lying eyes doesn't help much either.
Just like the Democrats seem to think the best way to get leftists to vote is to scold them, they seem to think they can make everyone think the economy is doing great by scolding them for not cheerleading hard enough and they'll be shamed into saying they think the economy is very very good.
And here's the thing: there are some indicators the economy is good, but if people don't feel that the economy is good all the stats in the world don't matter. I'm fairly sure the biggie here is rent, plus the greedflation on staple items.
Even if (and I don't think it's true) that most people have gotten raises that put them with more purchasing power than they had in 2020 despite the higher rent and prices, just the sticker shock of having rent that's 50% higher is going to make people feel poorer. Add to that going to the grocery store and spending a fortune for a tiny handful of groceries and you've got a double whammy.
You can't scold people out of that. And all the graphs in the world showing lines going up aren't going to make people feel better about a sudden 50% increase in rent.
The Democrats ESPECIALLY can't make people feel better economically by talking about the fucking stock market. No one gives a shit about the stock market except billionaires and tryhard wannabes who think they can become billionaires one day. Most people hear "Dow Jones average" and either go to sleep or get angry, but they damn sure don't think "gee, the Davy Jones thingie is going up so I guess the part where I'm payin 50% more in rent doens't matter!"
I don't know what Biden could do about any of that. Especially considering most of condescending lecturing scolding is coming from non-official pundits and advocates.
Joe Biden isn't personally telling me I'm an idiot because I don't think the economy is fantastic. It's this entire army of mostly unpaid intenet types who feel that their mission in life is to be as sneeringly condescinding and aggressive as possible to anyone who isn't cheerleading the supposedly fantastic Biden economy. If they'd STFU, or at least admit that higher rent and higher prices overall make us feel bad about the economy and that's valid, I think it'd help a lot.
Of course, we've got nearly a year before the elections, and voters have shitty memory. If Biden can curb is obsessive need to kiss Likud ass and tell us that genocide is the best thing ever as long as it's the IDF doing it then by election day the sting of his pro-genocide actions will have faded. Same on the economy, if it either really doess start improving [2] or if at least the unofficial Democratic boosters will stop being so obnoxious about insisting that we must pretend with them that it has, that could stop hurting him now.
But I really don't comprehend how any Democratic politician can look at the polling today and think that what they're doing is working.
Brian B. I'm sorry I"m not following. We can't predict what might happen with ideas, the DRPK exists, so therefore we should never try to think of anything or do anything because it might lead to the DPRK?
I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying, but i'm having a difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying.
[1] And maybe I'm just bitter, but I hate that fucking term and wish we'd be honest and just say "the states that really matter and everyone else can go Musk themselves". Unless you live in one of a tiny handful of states you just plain don't matter.
[2] Lulz, yeah right. The only thing that will make the economy better is billionaires stealing less of our labor and that's never going to happen without truly radical policy changes that no liberal will ever support.
posted by sotonohito at 6:47 AM on December 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
We can't predict what might happen with ideas, the DRPK exists, so therefore we should never try to think of anything or do anything because it might lead to the DPRK?
It wasn't a syllogism, but a counter-example. Idealism generally is thinking that one can dictate the outcome of a top down social order or intervention. This is comparable to a prohibition or a cult based on someone's emotionalism. When problems arise, corruption results, things fall apart in what are now understood to be disillusioned chain reactions of grift and abuse. So we should never stop thinking, but not try to think for others, now or in the future, because it's their source of character and courage.* A follower of a dictator lacks this critical functioning, and is a mental slave worse than any addiction, and is as dangerous as they are obedient. It is also a tendency of someone recovering from a religious childhood as an adult, betrayed by their magical solution seeking.
*Followers always lie for their leaders.
posted by Brian B. at 8:47 AM on December 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
It wasn't a syllogism, but a counter-example. Idealism generally is thinking that one can dictate the outcome of a top down social order or intervention. This is comparable to a prohibition or a cult based on someone's emotionalism. When problems arise, corruption results, things fall apart in what are now understood to be disillusioned chain reactions of grift and abuse. So we should never stop thinking, but not try to think for others, now or in the future, because it's their source of character and courage.* A follower of a dictator lacks this critical functioning, and is a mental slave worse than any addiction, and is as dangerous as they are obedient. It is also a tendency of someone recovering from a religious childhood as an adult, betrayed by their magical solution seeking.
*Followers always lie for their leaders.
posted by Brian B. at 8:47 AM on December 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to quickly consider former president Donald Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution for alleged election obstruction in 2020 (WaPo gift, NYT gift)
posted by box at 10:34 AM on December 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by box at 10:34 AM on December 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
And here's the thing: there are some indicators the economy is good, but if people don't feel that the economy is good all the stats in the world don't matter. I'm fairly sure the biggie here is rent, plus the greedflation on staple items.
FWIW I agree entirely with this. I've said elsewhere that I think housing costs are the single biggest driver of the current vibes about the economy despite all the other good data, and I don't think the general public will feel like the economy is doing well so long as housing costs are out of control. Even though there are lots of other ways we're doing quite well (unemployment, inflation falling back down, GDP growth).
Actually, I think that might only be true for a Democratic president. I expect as usual that if Trump is elected in 2024 that Republican views on the economy will turn on a dime and we'll be in the greatest economy in history overnight.
Unfortunately the President has extremely limited ability to affect housing costs in the short and even medium term so I'm not sure what can be done about it re: 2024. It's not like voting for the fascists will make housing costs better but here we are.
posted by Justinian at 2:11 PM on December 11, 2023 [6 favorites]
FWIW I agree entirely with this. I've said elsewhere that I think housing costs are the single biggest driver of the current vibes about the economy despite all the other good data, and I don't think the general public will feel like the economy is doing well so long as housing costs are out of control. Even though there are lots of other ways we're doing quite well (unemployment, inflation falling back down, GDP growth).
Actually, I think that might only be true for a Democratic president. I expect as usual that if Trump is elected in 2024 that Republican views on the economy will turn on a dime and we'll be in the greatest economy in history overnight.
Unfortunately the President has extremely limited ability to affect housing costs in the short and even medium term so I'm not sure what can be done about it re: 2024. It's not like voting for the fascists will make housing costs better but here we are.
posted by Justinian at 2:11 PM on December 11, 2023 [6 favorites]
Polling shows Biden lagging in several swing states he took in 2020, which is terrifying and predictable. Like Democrats have for my entire life they're failing to do what thier voters want because they're doing what their rich donors want.
Some polls show Biden slightly behind. Other polls show Biden slightly ahead. You can choose your polls, and you can then choose your explanation for them. A year before the election, none of it really means much.
I already typed paragraphs way up above about how and why Biden and many other Dems are focused on delivering for the largest and most reliable blocs of Dem voters, who are center-left moderates and pro-reform liberals. "Rich donors" may have some influence on niche issues, but by and large, they are not steering the party on major issues.
I'll reup the link to the Pew Political Typology so that anyone who still hasn't done so can drill down and get a more granular understanding of who the Democratic electorate actually is.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:44 PM on December 11, 2023 [9 favorites]
Some polls show Biden slightly behind. Other polls show Biden slightly ahead. You can choose your polls, and you can then choose your explanation for them. A year before the election, none of it really means much.
I already typed paragraphs way up above about how and why Biden and many other Dems are focused on delivering for the largest and most reliable blocs of Dem voters, who are center-left moderates and pro-reform liberals. "Rich donors" may have some influence on niche issues, but by and large, they are not steering the party on major issues.
I'll reup the link to the Pew Political Typology so that anyone who still hasn't done so can drill down and get a more granular understanding of who the Democratic electorate actually is.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:44 PM on December 11, 2023 [9 favorites]
10 Alarming things Trump has promised to do in a second term (Popular Information)
posted by box at 4:17 AM on December 12, 2023
posted by box at 4:17 AM on December 12, 2023
> "Rich donors" may have some influence on niche issues, but by and large, they are not steering the party on major issues.
the power of rich donors isn't primarily derived from influence on particular issues, but is instead the power to determine the terrain on which debate happens — the power to choose the set of issues under consideration, and the power to define the range of thinkable ideas about those issues.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 5:14 AM on December 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
the power of rich donors isn't primarily derived from influence on particular issues, but is instead the power to determine the terrain on which debate happens — the power to choose the set of issues under consideration, and the power to define the range of thinkable ideas about those issues.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 5:14 AM on December 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
the power of rich donors isn't primarily derived from influence on particular issues, but is instead the power to determine the terrain on which debate happens — the power to choose the set of issues under consideration, and the power to define the range of thinkable ideas about those issues.
That sounds very sinister, and also incredibly vague. Can you be more specific? How are these rich donors exerting their mind control?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:19 AM on December 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
That sounds very sinister, and also incredibly vague. Can you be more specific? How are these rich donors exerting their mind control?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 10:19 AM on December 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Companies never restrict speech of employees or customers, or make rulings about types of acceptable content. Which companies get funding and support, that happens actually completely independently of the beliefs of the people holding the money. Politicians never make decisions based on what they think will appeal to business, and no-one is ever influenced in their decisions by whether they have the financial backing for lawsuits. All publishing houses and media organisations are publicly owned, and accountable via direct democracy. Employment in guaranteed by the state and therefore no-one has to consider whether their future boss might have opinions on anything, and if they did, rigorous antidiscrimination laws ensure that it wouldn't matter.
If it's not a direct political donation, it doesn't affect politics and since there's caps on individual donations, the rich are actually equal to your or me in their political influence. Suggesting anything else is bizarrely, indicates an unsound mind, and maybe even the seeds of anti-Semitism?
I'm really not sure what you're asking, Artifice_Eternity. I don't think I've scratched the surface of the ways in which the rich a̶n̶d̶ ̶p̶o̶w̶e̶r̶f̶u̶l̶ could possibly have "mind control" influence on the shape of the debate, but fortunately, all the things I just listed are true, so it is just obviously just conspiratorial thinking. I'm very glad.
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:28 PM on December 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
If it's not a direct political donation, it doesn't affect politics and since there's caps on individual donations, the rich are actually equal to your or me in their political influence. Suggesting anything else is bizarrely, indicates an unsound mind, and maybe even the seeds of anti-Semitism?
I'm really not sure what you're asking, Artifice_Eternity. I don't think I've scratched the surface of the ways in which the rich a̶n̶d̶ ̶p̶o̶w̶e̶r̶f̶u̶l̶ could possibly have "mind control" influence on the shape of the debate, but fortunately, all the things I just listed are true, so it is just obviously just conspiratorial thinking. I'm very glad.
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:28 PM on December 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Artifice_Eternity Come on man, Biden LITERALLY told his big group of millionaire donors that "nothing would fundamentally change" in the context of reassuring them that all that blather about higher taxes on the ulra rich would never turn into anything serious.
Many issues that poll extremely well, not just among Democrats but Republicans too, are never even brought up becasue the billionaire parasite class doesn't like them.
60% of Americans favor rent control. 67% favor medical debt forgiveness.
57% overall and a whopping 72% of Democrats favor national single payer healthcare.
56% overall favor cutting the military budget.
74% of Americans overall, including Republicans, think the rich should pay higher taxes.
71% of Americans support labor unions.
Notice that none of that has even been brought up? Why not? Because billionaires hate all of that.
posted by sotonohito at 7:13 AM on December 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
Many issues that poll extremely well, not just among Democrats but Republicans too, are never even brought up becasue the billionaire parasite class doesn't like them.
60% of Americans favor rent control. 67% favor medical debt forgiveness.
57% overall and a whopping 72% of Democrats favor national single payer healthcare.
56% overall favor cutting the military budget.
74% of Americans overall, including Republicans, think the rich should pay higher taxes.
71% of Americans support labor unions.
Notice that none of that has even been brought up? Why not? Because billionaires hate all of that.
posted by sotonohito at 7:13 AM on December 13, 2023 [5 favorites]
Not sure of the sources of those numbers, but I know support for "national single payer healthcare" varies wildly in polls depending on how the poll question is phrased.
Rent control is usually a local issue, and does get brought up in local government all the time. But studies show that "While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood."
Maybe these issues just aren't as simple as you think they are?
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:05 AM on December 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Americans like the idea of “Medicare-for-all,” but support flips to disapproval if it would result in higher taxes or longer waits for care.And only 10% of Americans are IN labor unions.
Rent control is usually a local issue, and does get brought up in local government all the time. But studies show that "While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood."
Maybe these issues just aren't as simple as you think they are?
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:05 AM on December 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Who said "simple"? I just note that people want the problem fixed enough that they're supporting solutions that are clearly filthy commie pinko stuff so the issue must be really damn important to them if they'll even consider (gasp) socialism!
And yes, if you lie to people and claim UHC will cost more then they'll say they oppose it. Big surprise. I don't care what a poll based on lies has to say. Even conservative economists agree a switch to UHC wills ave over one trillion dollars per year, so it clearly isn't going to cost more.
posted by sotonohito at 2:16 PM on December 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
And yes, if you lie to people and claim UHC will cost more then they'll say they oppose it. Big surprise. I don't care what a poll based on lies has to say. Even conservative economists agree a switch to UHC wills ave over one trillion dollars per year, so it clearly isn't going to cost more.
posted by sotonohito at 2:16 PM on December 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
Biden LITERALLY told his big group of...
...people in front of him telling them what they want to hear. HRC did the same and I didn't like it them but it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
I still expect more of the same. I don't like it, I don't like most democrats, especially the old guard. But we have to work with what we have.
Our system produces the worst two choices and then we all vote for the lesser. They're both terrible. Trump is worse by several miles but that doesn't make Biden good. Were our system more representative, Biden would be the conservative party's nominee.
Makes it frustrating but kinda predictably so.
posted by VTX at 2:48 PM on December 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
...people in front of him telling them what they want to hear. HRC did the same and I didn't like it them but it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
I still expect more of the same. I don't like it, I don't like most democrats, especially the old guard. But we have to work with what we have.
Our system produces the worst two choices and then we all vote for the lesser. They're both terrible. Trump is worse by several miles but that doesn't make Biden good. Were our system more representative, Biden would be the conservative party's nominee.
Makes it frustrating but kinda predictably so.
posted by VTX at 2:48 PM on December 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Artifice_Eternity's claim wasn't that public opinion is complex and divided, or that the political system can lead to a lack of good choices, it was that claiming that the rich people can exert undue influence on the terrain of debate is equivalently ridiculous to claiming they're doing shadowy mind control, and needs some high bar of evidence.
Like I've rarely been as completely flabbergasted on this site. I don't really know where to start in proving that there's a correlation between money and power, because I'm not sure I've ever been asked to prove that before, usually the sides are more like "money translates to power and that's good actually, they deserve to use their money" and "money translates to power and that makes democracy harder".
"No it doesnt" is... confusing.
posted by Audreynachrome at 3:29 PM on December 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Like I've rarely been as completely flabbergasted on this site. I don't really know where to start in proving that there's a correlation between money and power, because I'm not sure I've ever been asked to prove that before, usually the sides are more like "money translates to power and that's good actually, they deserve to use their money" and "money translates to power and that makes democracy harder".
"No it doesnt" is... confusing.
posted by Audreynachrome at 3:29 PM on December 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
The claim was not "rich people can exert undue influence on the terrain of debate" or "there's a correlation between money and power" (both of which I agree with.) It was that they "determine the terrain on which debate happens — the power to choose the set of issues under consideration, and the power to define the range of thinkable ideas about those issues."
Those italicized words (italics mine) are way stronger than "influence" and "correlation."
And the idea that Americans are really nearly unanimously in favor of leftist policies and the only reason they're not enacted already is those dastardly billionaires just ignores the reality that Americans are actually deeply divided about those issues.
Ultimately if you want to live in a democracy, you have to accept that not all of your fellow citizens agree with you, and that they're allowed to get their way sometimes too. And going back to "Is there such a thing as leftist authoritarianism," the insistence that polls and election results can only be legitimate if they produce leftist results is frustrating!
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:52 PM on December 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Those italicized words (italics mine) are way stronger than "influence" and "correlation."
And the idea that Americans are really nearly unanimously in favor of leftist policies and the only reason they're not enacted already is those dastardly billionaires just ignores the reality that Americans are actually deeply divided about those issues.
Ultimately if you want to live in a democracy, you have to accept that not all of your fellow citizens agree with you, and that they're allowed to get their way sometimes too. And going back to "Is there such a thing as leftist authoritarianism," the insistence that polls and election results can only be legitimate if they produce leftist results is frustrating!
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:52 PM on December 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
I think we have very different ideas about what "determine the terrain on which debate happens" means then, because I tend to think that the people who own the terrain obviously have that power.
the insistence that polls and election results can only be legitimate
And now you're obviously putting words in my mouth, I didn't mention polls or elections, because they're not super relevant to this. But I'm glad you got to convince yourself that it's good when a majority of the population supports evil things!
I'm done here.
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:40 PM on December 13, 2023
the insistence that polls and election results can only be legitimate
And now you're obviously putting words in my mouth, I didn't mention polls or elections, because they're not super relevant to this. But I'm glad you got to convince yourself that it's good when a majority of the population supports evil things!
I'm done here.
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:40 PM on December 13, 2023
I didn't ascribe those words to you, Audreynachrome. That was my reaction to sotonohito saying "I don't care what a poll based on lies has to say."
To you I would just say... we're having a debate on non-billionaire-owned terrain right now, and yet we don't agree.
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:14 AM on December 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
To you I would just say... we're having a debate on non-billionaire-owned terrain right now, and yet we don't agree.
posted by OnceUponATime at 6:14 AM on December 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
is this the new sortition thread cause i'm pretty sure we could turn it into the new sortition thread if we wanted
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:01 AM on December 14, 2023
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:01 AM on December 14, 2023
OnceUponATime I never claimed a poll was only valid if it produced leftist results, merely that a poll which explicitly lies to the people it is polling is not a valid poll.
Every economist out there say UHC will result in lower costs to the tune of $1 trillion per year at a minimum, some say more. Therefore any poll which asks people "UHC will cost more than the current system, do you support or oppose UHC" is a poll based on a lie and clealry not worth bothering with.
I can make a poll that says "studies show voting for Republicans gives you genital herpes, do you plan to vote Republican" and the results of that poll would be invalid because, again, it's based on a lie.
There are many leftist issues that poll really badly, for example somewhere between 55% and 60% of Americns say they favor increased funding for the pigs. I don't like those results but I don't deny that the poll which produced that result is valid because the questions weren't based on lying to the people being polled.
And yes, I do explicitly argue that by controlling the money going to politicians the very rich get to have a great deal of control on the Overton Window even if they don't have total control of it.
posted by sotonohito at 7:19 AM on December 14, 2023 [5 favorites]
Every economist out there say UHC will result in lower costs to the tune of $1 trillion per year at a minimum, some say more. Therefore any poll which asks people "UHC will cost more than the current system, do you support or oppose UHC" is a poll based on a lie and clealry not worth bothering with.
I can make a poll that says "studies show voting for Republicans gives you genital herpes, do you plan to vote Republican" and the results of that poll would be invalid because, again, it's based on a lie.
There are many leftist issues that poll really badly, for example somewhere between 55% and 60% of Americns say they favor increased funding for the pigs. I don't like those results but I don't deny that the poll which produced that result is valid because the questions weren't based on lying to the people being polled.
And yes, I do explicitly argue that by controlling the money going to politicians the very rich get to have a great deal of control on the Overton Window even if they don't have total control of it.
posted by sotonohito at 7:19 AM on December 14, 2023 [5 favorites]
It's not a lie that TAXES would have to go up to pay for single payer even if COSTS would come down. The whole point is that it would be taxpayer funded instead of privately funded. This changes who pays and what the consequences are for not paying and how much providers get paid and various other things. And people are gonna have opinions. And those opinions are valid even if they don't agree with yours, and also polling is hard and your list of unsourced poll numbers didn't prove anything.
And the point is that Democrats not doing everything the left wants is NOT proof that the party has been captured by billionaires, because there's just no evidence that these things the left wants are what the average American or the average Democratic party supporter wants.
The idea that both parties are the same or that democracy is so hopelessly broken anyway as to not be worth saving is a dangerous one!
And while nobody has explicitly said those things in this thread, it's kind of a natural conclusion of claims like "Democrats always choose the billionaires" "pro-genocide actions" "rich donors [have] the power to define the range of thinkable ideas."
What is possibly the point of fighting for democracy in such a world? Why bother showing up to vote at all? Or why not just vote for the most entertaining candidate? It doesn't matter anyway. The rich donors control everything and even the "good" guys are "pro genocide."
I very much dislike those conclusions which I think are implied by the deeply cynical rhetoric you (and others who often self identify as leftist) sometimes use, and that is why I am pushing back.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:05 AM on December 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
And the point is that Democrats not doing everything the left wants is NOT proof that the party has been captured by billionaires, because there's just no evidence that these things the left wants are what the average American or the average Democratic party supporter wants.
The idea that both parties are the same or that democracy is so hopelessly broken anyway as to not be worth saving is a dangerous one!
And while nobody has explicitly said those things in this thread, it's kind of a natural conclusion of claims like "Democrats always choose the billionaires" "pro-genocide actions" "rich donors [have] the power to define the range of thinkable ideas."
What is possibly the point of fighting for democracy in such a world? Why bother showing up to vote at all? Or why not just vote for the most entertaining candidate? It doesn't matter anyway. The rich donors control everything and even the "good" guys are "pro genocide."
I very much dislike those conclusions which I think are implied by the deeply cynical rhetoric you (and others who often self identify as leftist) sometimes use, and that is why I am pushing back.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:05 AM on December 14, 2023 [2 favorites]
And yes, I do see authoritarian tendencies in the often repeated claim that, if Democrats really meant anything they said, Biden would just do a bunch of stuff (close Guantanamo! Forgive all student loans! Mint a trillion dollar coin!) through executive authority and never mind Congress and the Courts. And if Democrats don't do that stuff it can only be because they have been bought and paid for by billionaires!
As opposed to the fact that maybe, actually, doing stuff that way is antidemocratic!
I actually favor all of those policies AND (mostly) favor single payer healthcare, but for saying we shouldn't do those things outside of the framework of the rule of law and against the will of a majority of Americans, I get accused of "vicious hatred of the left and continuing slander of leftists." I get called neoliberal or right wing when what I'm trying to advocate for is democracy. For letting others have a say and get their way too sometimes. Is that compatible with leftism, or no?
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:18 AM on December 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
As opposed to the fact that maybe, actually, doing stuff that way is antidemocratic!
I actually favor all of those policies AND (mostly) favor single payer healthcare, but for saying we shouldn't do those things outside of the framework of the rule of law and against the will of a majority of Americans, I get accused of "vicious hatred of the left and continuing slander of leftists." I get called neoliberal or right wing when what I'm trying to advocate for is democracy. For letting others have a say and get their way too sometimes. Is that compatible with leftism, or no?
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:18 AM on December 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
(wait I don't actually favor the trillion dollar coin thing probably, though if it were the only alternative to permanent shutdown and default on our debts, maybe)
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:26 AM on December 14, 2023
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:26 AM on December 14, 2023
OnceUponATime How can we fight for democracy if we're in denial about how bad things are and what the threats are?
If billionaires are influencing politics how can we combat that without saying that billionaires are influencing politics? If you mean "billionaires are not influencing politics, you're just being alarmist and/or indulging in conspiracy thinking", I'll have to disagree, but I can see where you're coming from.
But if you agree that there's an issue with billonaires in politics but think we shouldn't talk about it I'm kind of confused.
As far as authoritarianism goes, I think you're mixing up several things that really should be considered separately.
However true it is, there is a perception that the Democrats in general, and Democratic Presidents in specific, often do not actually do all they can for a cause or policy they ostensibly support. In part I'd argue this is due to Democrats and especially Democratic Presidents, not being very vocal about their support and not seeming to express much if any disappointment or tell us what the next steps they plan to take when their policies or cause fail.
There's this sort of technocratic wonk idea among many Democratic officials, and apparently voters, that process is god, you try X by the sacred process and if that doesn't work you just give up because the process said no. An attitude that even expressing anger or resolving to keep trying is somehow cheating or authoritarian. An idea that we should try once in a passionless sort of way, and if the process says no just give up forever because the process said no.
You can argue that's not actually how the Democrats behave, and I might even agree to an extent. But they LOOK like they don't give a shit most of the time which leads to a perception that since they don't give a shit they probably aren't doing all they can.
I'll give Biden credit where due, he's kept at the student loan forgiveness with a refreshing doggedness that's notably absent from every other policy he's failed to enact.
That, an expression of frusturation and anger at Democrats who often seem maddeningly passive, wonkish, passionless, and indifferent, is part of what you seem to be identifying as authoritarianism and I'd say if that is actually the case you're completely unjustified in that view. Even if you don't agree that there actually is something else the Democrats could be doing, I don't think expressing frusturation with their seeming lack of committment is authoritarian.
Then there are issues where we see blatant Republican cheating and there is extreme frusturation with the failure of the Democrats to do anything about it except whine.
I'm not for autocracy or authoritarianism, but when the Republicans told Obama to fuck off and they would never hold a vote on Garland I think he would have been entirely justified and not authoritarian in making the Constitutionally very shaky argument that by refusing to hold a vote the Republicans were telling him he could appoint anyone he wanted and told Garland to show up for work the next day.
I'm all for rules [1], but if the Republicans are breaking the rules and winning and all the Democrats do is say, very politely and meekly, that the Republicans shouldn't do that, then we're going to get authoritarian Republican rule. You do, in fact, fight fire with fire sometimes.
Cuz it's not like the Democrats being a sterling example of being robotic rule worshipers who don't even look for loopholes has restrained the Republicans in any way.
I can say that while I'd disagree with you, I must concede that there is at least some validity in seeing those positions as if not full on authoritarian at least leaning that direction.
And then there's what I'd term actual authoritarianism which would be things like Biden just unilaterally decreeing Universal Single Payer or whatever. I'm opposed to that. And I know there are people who aren't.
That third category is 100% authoritarian and much as I really, really, really don't want to I must say it's wrong. I fucking hate that, I desperately want to be able to say 'we're right, there is suffering, it must be ended, fuck this rules shit'. But I can't. At least up to a point I can't.
SO yeah, I think a lot our differences here are due to the fact that I, and man others, think there is an important and significant distinction between a cautious and reluctant willingness to protect the what the rules stand for even if it means breaking or bending them on rare occasions and being an authoritarian. I'll also admit that's a hell of a fine line and a slippery slope. I fully recognize that where I'd draw that line is different from where someone else might.
[1] Well, up to a point. I would like to hope that I have the whatittakes to do as John Brown did and when the rules produce an intolerably evil result say fuck it and go do what's right regardless of its legality. If the rules say turn the Jews over to the Gestapo, or allow slavery, I say let's break the rules.
posted by sotonohito at 10:56 AM on December 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
If billionaires are influencing politics how can we combat that without saying that billionaires are influencing politics? If you mean "billionaires are not influencing politics, you're just being alarmist and/or indulging in conspiracy thinking", I'll have to disagree, but I can see where you're coming from.
But if you agree that there's an issue with billonaires in politics but think we shouldn't talk about it I'm kind of confused.
As far as authoritarianism goes, I think you're mixing up several things that really should be considered separately.
However true it is, there is a perception that the Democrats in general, and Democratic Presidents in specific, often do not actually do all they can for a cause or policy they ostensibly support. In part I'd argue this is due to Democrats and especially Democratic Presidents, not being very vocal about their support and not seeming to express much if any disappointment or tell us what the next steps they plan to take when their policies or cause fail.
There's this sort of technocratic wonk idea among many Democratic officials, and apparently voters, that process is god, you try X by the sacred process and if that doesn't work you just give up because the process said no. An attitude that even expressing anger or resolving to keep trying is somehow cheating or authoritarian. An idea that we should try once in a passionless sort of way, and if the process says no just give up forever because the process said no.
You can argue that's not actually how the Democrats behave, and I might even agree to an extent. But they LOOK like they don't give a shit most of the time which leads to a perception that since they don't give a shit they probably aren't doing all they can.
I'll give Biden credit where due, he's kept at the student loan forgiveness with a refreshing doggedness that's notably absent from every other policy he's failed to enact.
That, an expression of frusturation and anger at Democrats who often seem maddeningly passive, wonkish, passionless, and indifferent, is part of what you seem to be identifying as authoritarianism and I'd say if that is actually the case you're completely unjustified in that view. Even if you don't agree that there actually is something else the Democrats could be doing, I don't think expressing frusturation with their seeming lack of committment is authoritarian.
Then there are issues where we see blatant Republican cheating and there is extreme frusturation with the failure of the Democrats to do anything about it except whine.
I'm not for autocracy or authoritarianism, but when the Republicans told Obama to fuck off and they would never hold a vote on Garland I think he would have been entirely justified and not authoritarian in making the Constitutionally very shaky argument that by refusing to hold a vote the Republicans were telling him he could appoint anyone he wanted and told Garland to show up for work the next day.
I'm all for rules [1], but if the Republicans are breaking the rules and winning and all the Democrats do is say, very politely and meekly, that the Republicans shouldn't do that, then we're going to get authoritarian Republican rule. You do, in fact, fight fire with fire sometimes.
Cuz it's not like the Democrats being a sterling example of being robotic rule worshipers who don't even look for loopholes has restrained the Republicans in any way.
I can say that while I'd disagree with you, I must concede that there is at least some validity in seeing those positions as if not full on authoritarian at least leaning that direction.
And then there's what I'd term actual authoritarianism which would be things like Biden just unilaterally decreeing Universal Single Payer or whatever. I'm opposed to that. And I know there are people who aren't.
That third category is 100% authoritarian and much as I really, really, really don't want to I must say it's wrong. I fucking hate that, I desperately want to be able to say 'we're right, there is suffering, it must be ended, fuck this rules shit'. But I can't. At least up to a point I can't.
SO yeah, I think a lot our differences here are due to the fact that I, and man others, think there is an important and significant distinction between a cautious and reluctant willingness to protect the what the rules stand for even if it means breaking or bending them on rare occasions and being an authoritarian. I'll also admit that's a hell of a fine line and a slippery slope. I fully recognize that where I'd draw that line is different from where someone else might.
[1] Well, up to a point. I would like to hope that I have the whatittakes to do as John Brown did and when the rules produce an intolerably evil result say fuck it and go do what's right regardless of its legality. If the rules say turn the Jews over to the Gestapo, or allow slavery, I say let's break the rules.
posted by sotonohito at 10:56 AM on December 14, 2023 [4 favorites]
“Brian Klaas on the ‘banality of crazy,’” Aaron Rupar, Public Notice, 13 December 2023
posted by ob1quixote at 11:21 AM on December 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 11:21 AM on December 14, 2023 [3 favorites]
You know all the responsible, moderate, law-abiding folks in the first (?) Trump administration? No? Well, they're gone anyway. WSJ [gift link]: The Conservative Coterie Behind Trump’s Second-Term Agenda: A small group of loyalists is influencing his campaign policy plans, as many past top aides have broken with the former president "'He’s been pretty clear in saying he will use the levers of government to go after his political opponents, which is anathema to conservatives,' said Marc Short, who served in the Trump administration."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:37 AM on December 15, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:37 AM on December 15, 2023 [2 favorites]
New from CNN: "A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency ... The binder contained raw intelligence the US and its NATO allies collected on Russians and Russian agents, including sources and methods that informed the US government’s assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help Trump win the 2016 election...The intelligence was so sensitive that lawmakers and congressional aides with top secret security clearances were able to review the material only at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where their work scrutinizing it was itself kept in a locked safe."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:02 AM on December 15, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:02 AM on December 15, 2023 [9 favorites]
MonkeyToes: “I feel strongly that MeFites will benefit from reading Jeff Sharlet’s The Undertow: Scenes From a Slow Civil War (Goodreads). (Here’s Sharlet talking with Marc Maron on his podcast.) ”I also have recommended Sharlet's book in this thread, and I hope everyone will read it.
I finally got the Maron podcast to the top of my pile. I urge you to listen to it in the strongest possible terms. Today. The Correspondent on the Continent was always suspicious of Sharlet, and I desperately, agonizingly, wish he had lived long enough to have heard it.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:42 AM on December 19, 2023 [4 favorites]
“The Anatomy of American Fascism, part 1: Fascist Foot Soldiers and their Patrician Funders,” Seth Cotlar, Rightlandia, 18 December 2023
Introducing Jozef Mlot-Mroz, Salem, Massachusetts' most famous Nazi troll (ca. 1960-2000) and the wealthy Exeter/Harvard law grad named Richard J. Cotter who secretly funded his exploitsposted by ob1quixote at 8:34 AM on December 19, 2023 [3 favorites]
Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause [AP].
Can institutions save us? (the ball's in the Supreme's Court now, I guess…)
posted by mazola at 3:48 PM on December 19, 2023 [6 favorites]
Can institutions save us? (the ball's in the Supreme's Court now, I guess…)
posted by mazola at 3:48 PM on December 19, 2023 [6 favorites]
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure it would be a good thing if Trump was kicked off state ballots, because you KNOW the Republicans would immediately start working to ban the Democratic candidate in every state they control based on whatever BS they can make up about said candidate doing insurrection.
posted by sotonohito at 8:56 PM on December 19, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 8:56 PM on December 19, 2023 [2 favorites]
I’m sure if they thought they could succeed at that they are working on it already.
posted by bq at 7:19 AM on December 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by bq at 7:19 AM on December 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
On the topic of Democrats seeming to have no particular interest in actually fighitng, we have this from Sen Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader and most powerful Democrat after Biden and Harris:
If he'd just stopped after "despicable" it would have been fine. But he couldn't resist playing the enlightened centrist bullshit game.
Biden's campaign, at least, issued a straightforward condemnation of the poisoning our blood rhetoric and didn't offer Trump any cover by adding stuff about "border security".
When you see stuff like that from Schumer, it's really easy to think that he's not trying all that hard.
posted by sotonohito at 7:57 AM on December 20, 2023 [4 favorites]
What Donald Trump said and did was despicable, but we do have a problem at the border and Democrats know we have to solve that problem, but in keeping with our principles.Seriously, WTF? Trump handed the Democrats a perfect fucking talking point and there's Schumer undermining it and bothsidesing it and making excuses for him!
If he'd just stopped after "despicable" it would have been fine. But he couldn't resist playing the enlightened centrist bullshit game.
Biden's campaign, at least, issued a straightforward condemnation of the poisoning our blood rhetoric and didn't offer Trump any cover by adding stuff about "border security".
When you see stuff like that from Schumer, it's really easy to think that he's not trying all that hard.
posted by sotonohito at 7:57 AM on December 20, 2023 [4 favorites]
But Schumer is right though.
posted by mazola at 8:07 AM on December 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by mazola at 8:07 AM on December 20, 2023 [1 favorite]
The question isn’t whether it is right. The question is whether it is marketable and whether he could have said something else that is also right that is more marketable.
posted by bq at 11:12 AM on December 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by bq at 11:12 AM on December 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
But Schumer is right though.
Not in the way he meant, however. He meant that there were too many brown people wanting to immigrate, when the border problem is the extreme militarization, inhumane (and often unlawful) ways that asylum seekers (in particular) are treated, and the excessive and wasteful spending on both of those.
posted by eviemath at 11:31 AM on December 20, 2023 [6 favorites]
Not in the way he meant, however. He meant that there were too many brown people wanting to immigrate, when the border problem is the extreme militarization, inhumane (and often unlawful) ways that asylum seekers (in particular) are treated, and the excessive and wasteful spending on both of those.
posted by eviemath at 11:31 AM on December 20, 2023 [6 favorites]
“Yes, Trump's new talking point is full on Nazi,” Noah Berlatsky, Public Notice, 20 December 2023
Instead of explaining to voters and constituents that Trump is pushing fascist conspiracy theories which have already led to multiple murders, Schumer felt he needed to cosign a kind of fascism lite, pretending that Trump is addressing a real problem, or has any interest in addressing one. This effort to find a way to turn blatant fascist propaganda into some sort of consensus talking point is an ominous sign for the border security deal that Democrats are currently negotiating with the GOP. If Schumer isn’t able to unequivocally denounce what is in effect a call to violence against immigrants, how is he going to craft a deal that treats immigrants fairly or compassionately?posted by ob1quixote at 3:40 PM on December 20, 2023 [5 favorites]
Any "border security deal" crafted with the Republicans is going to be maliciously cruel and unavoidably racist.
And we should have genuinely open borders anyway. It's a massive economic boost per every economist out there (including the right wing economists though they hate to say it). Our current immigration system is built on the framework established way back in the late 1800's which was explicitly racist and sought to limit immigration based on race to preserve America as a white ethnostate. The only way to fix it is to throw it out and start over.
But yes, Schumer's defeatist/treasonous efforts to normalize Trump's racist rhetoric is a sign that the deal they're crafting will be even worse than it otherwise might be.
I'm really not sure what the Democrats are thinking. Coupled with Biden's devotion to giving Israel weapons it looks like they're deliberately trying to drive away voters. Do either of them imagine that there's a big group of wavering Republicans who will switch sides and vote Biden if only they can be cruel enough?
posted by sotonohito at 8:23 PM on December 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
And we should have genuinely open borders anyway. It's a massive economic boost per every economist out there (including the right wing economists though they hate to say it). Our current immigration system is built on the framework established way back in the late 1800's which was explicitly racist and sought to limit immigration based on race to preserve America as a white ethnostate. The only way to fix it is to throw it out and start over.
But yes, Schumer's defeatist/treasonous efforts to normalize Trump's racist rhetoric is a sign that the deal they're crafting will be even worse than it otherwise might be.
I'm really not sure what the Democrats are thinking. Coupled with Biden's devotion to giving Israel weapons it looks like they're deliberately trying to drive away voters. Do either of them imagine that there's a big group of wavering Republicans who will switch sides and vote Biden if only they can be cruel enough?
posted by sotonohito at 8:23 PM on December 20, 2023 [3 favorites]
And at that time there were also quotas for Irish and Southern or Eastern European immigrants (albeit higher than quotas for ethic groups that have not been since assimilated into whiteness). That’s not an argument against the current US immigration structure having racist origins.
posted by eviemath at 9:18 PM on December 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by eviemath at 9:18 PM on December 21, 2023 [1 favorite]
But he couldn't resist playing the enlightened centrist bullshit game.
This is a remarkable situation - compare and contrast Schumer and McConnell. Would McConnell ever make a statement like Schumer's? No. No he would not. And though, yes immigration policy in the US is a clusterfuck of the first order and could certainly be reformed - mitigating anything Trump says in any way is wrong. Sounds hyperbolic but it's still true: Trump is an absolute negative and validating anything he says is validation of everything he says.
Fucked up, but there it is. Germany has laws against the Swastika and etc for a reason. (Not that I'm saying Trump should be outlawed, just ignored, like a fringe candidate who's platform is based on anti-democratic ideals.)
posted by From Bklyn at 12:38 AM on December 22, 2023 [3 favorites]
This is a remarkable situation - compare and contrast Schumer and McConnell. Would McConnell ever make a statement like Schumer's? No. No he would not. And though, yes immigration policy in the US is a clusterfuck of the first order and could certainly be reformed - mitigating anything Trump says in any way is wrong. Sounds hyperbolic but it's still true: Trump is an absolute negative and validating anything he says is validation of everything he says.
Fucked up, but there it is. Germany has laws against the Swastika and etc for a reason. (Not that I'm saying Trump should be outlawed, just ignored, like a fringe candidate who's platform is based on anti-democratic ideals.)
posted by From Bklyn at 12:38 AM on December 22, 2023 [3 favorites]
And we should have genuinely open borders anyway. It's a massive economic boost per every economist out there (including the right wing economists though they hate to say it).
They don't mind saying it, and it is a libertarian policy plank and always has been. The Hoover Institution, the Cato Institute and Forbes magazine have been beating this drum for years because it favors ownership of property and punishes renters, wages and welfare beneficiaries. Here is a page that mentions some surveys and addresses claims of consensus. Not mentioned is that borders are mostly open for investment, import and export and these have become smoldering issues that have shaped politics. And it validates the paranoid replacement theory, which is ironic that libertarians promote it and their secret allies politicize it negatively.
posted by Brian B. at 7:30 AM on December 22, 2023 [1 favorite]
They don't mind saying it, and it is a libertarian policy plank and always has been. The Hoover Institution, the Cato Institute and Forbes magazine have been beating this drum for years because it favors ownership of property and punishes renters, wages and welfare beneficiaries. Here is a page that mentions some surveys and addresses claims of consensus. Not mentioned is that borders are mostly open for investment, import and export and these have become smoldering issues that have shaped politics. And it validates the paranoid replacement theory, which is ironic that libertarians promote it and their secret allies politicize it negatively.
posted by Brian B. at 7:30 AM on December 22, 2023 [1 favorite]
Something I just noticed that I'll put in here in case others have noticed the same thing: Trump no longer has "token people of color" in the background at his rallies. (Excuse me if my language is offensive, I am not American and there are things I don't know).
Before, there were always some "Black voters for Trump" or some obviously Hispanic people in the background when he spoke. Some looked very much like they were paid to be there. Obviously, there will be some people with Latin-American background who will be true Trump supporters, but even they aren't visible anymore.
posted by mumimor at 9:20 AM on December 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
Before, there were always some "Black voters for Trump" or some obviously Hispanic people in the background when he spoke. Some looked very much like they were paid to be there. Obviously, there will be some people with Latin-American background who will be true Trump supporters, but even they aren't visible anymore.
posted by mumimor at 9:20 AM on December 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
Any "border security deal" crafted with the Republicans is going to be maliciously cruel and unavoidably racist.
I'm sure everything will work out great if the Dems don't try to make an inevitably flawed deal with the GOP on immigration and military aid to Ukraine.
Border chaos will continue to inflame people here, possibly leading to a Trump win next year. And Ukraine won't get any weapons, allowing Putin to eventually take it over, advance the march of global fascism, and discourage other nations from resisting his tender attentions, because hey, the U.S. will just abandon you in the end anyway.
But the important thing is that Biden, Schumer, et al will retain their moral purity!
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:51 PM on December 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'm sure everything will work out great if the Dems don't try to make an inevitably flawed deal with the GOP on immigration and military aid to Ukraine.
Border chaos will continue to inflame people here, possibly leading to a Trump win next year. And Ukraine won't get any weapons, allowing Putin to eventually take it over, advance the march of global fascism, and discourage other nations from resisting his tender attentions, because hey, the U.S. will just abandon you in the end anyway.
But the important thing is that Biden, Schumer, et al will retain their moral purity!
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:51 PM on December 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
Our current immigration system is built on the framework established way back in the late 1800's which was explicitly racist and sought to limit immigration based on race to preserve America as a white ethnostate.
Are you overlooking the entire Ellis Island era?
Not to mention the post-1965 era, during which tens of millions of people from previously excluded backgrounds have become legal residents and U.S. citizens.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:53 PM on December 27, 2023
Are you overlooking the entire Ellis Island era?
Not to mention the post-1965 era, during which tens of millions of people from previously excluded backgrounds have become legal residents and U.S. citizens.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:53 PM on December 27, 2023
But yes, Schumer's defeatist/treasonous efforts to normalize Trump's racist rhetoric is a sign that the deal they're crafting will be even worse than it otherwise might be.
I'm really not sure what the Democrats are thinking. Coupled with Biden's devotion to giving Israel weapons it looks like they're deliberately trying to drive away voters. Do either of them imagine that there's a big group of wavering Republicans who will switch sides and vote Biden if only they can be cruel enough?
Sotonohito, I've mentioned before that you don't seem to understand who the core of the Dem electorate really is.
Since the information I offered previously doesn't seem to have sunken in, I'll quote directly from the Pew Political Typology's description of the two largest blocs of Democratic voters:
But if you prefer to just continue ignoring the research, and choose to believe that the only possible reason Biden, Schumer, et al. aren't doing exactly what progressives want is that they're either incredible idiots, or totally in thrall to rich corporate donors, well, I can't stop you.
It's funny how they keep winning elections, tho, isn't it? But of course, actual voters have no influence over election outcomes -- only "rich donors" do. [/s]
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:08 PM on December 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
I'm really not sure what the Democrats are thinking. Coupled with Biden's devotion to giving Israel weapons it looks like they're deliberately trying to drive away voters. Do either of them imagine that there's a big group of wavering Republicans who will switch sides and vote Biden if only they can be cruel enough?
Sotonohito, I've mentioned before that you don't seem to understand who the core of the Dem electorate really is.
Since the information I offered previously doesn't seem to have sunken in, I'll quote directly from the Pew Political Typology's description of the two largest blocs of Democratic voters:
Establishment Liberals, who make up a significantly larger share of the party (23%) than Progressive Left, also vote at high rates and are very politically attentive.The upshot is that Biden actually understands the Democratic electorate better than many progressives do, and generally attunes his policies to the party's center of gravity.
But while Establishment Liberals have liberal opinions on nearly all issues, they tend to support more measured policy approaches and are more likely to back political compromise than Progressive Left and, to some extent, Outsider Left.
For instance, while all Democratic groups say by wide margins that more needs to be done to ensure equal rights for all Americans, regardless of their racial or ethnic backgrounds, Establishment Liberals are somewhat more likely than other groups to say needed changes can be made within existing laws and institutions. A majority also say the party should be at least somewhat accepting of members who sometimes agree with the GOP on issues.
Democratic Mainstays – the largest single group in the Democratic coalition this year (constituting 28% of Democrats and Democratic leaners) – are considerably more likely than other groups to call themselves politically moderate.
Still, they hold nearly as liberal positions as other Democratic-oriented groups on economic issues, while they diverge from others in the coalition somewhat on immigration issues. (For instance, they are much less likely to support increasing legal immigration and more likely to identify illegal immigration as a problem in the country.)
They also are more invested in U.S. military power than other Democratic-oriented groups. Black Democrats are particularly concentrated in this group: 40% of Black Democrats are Democratic Mainstays. Mainstays are also older and less likely to be college educated than other segments of the coalition.
But if you prefer to just continue ignoring the research, and choose to believe that the only possible reason Biden, Schumer, et al. aren't doing exactly what progressives want is that they're either incredible idiots, or totally in thrall to rich corporate donors, well, I can't stop you.
It's funny how they keep winning elections, tho, isn't it? But of course, actual voters have no influence over election outcomes -- only "rich donors" do. [/s]
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:08 PM on December 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
"Based on" doesn't mean "stayed exactly the same", sheesh. I mean I get you want to punch the hippie, but making yourselves look like you have no reading comprehension or knowledge of history isn't the super KO punch to the dirty fucking hippie you seem to think it is.
Yes, in the 1950's they let in more non-whites. As they did during the Ellis Island era. That's still a racially based immigration policy built on a framework set in the late 1800's that was explicitly about maintaining America as a white ethnostate.
I mean, JFC, the fucking Brookings Institution admits the immigration system is based on systemic racism.
It's not like I'm making up stupid leftist purity bullshit here, saying that America's immigration system is both based on an explicitly racist framework and is still deeply racist is about as non-controversial as it gets and if anyone except your designated hippie to hate on had said it you'd be nodding sagely in agreement.
Artifice_Eternity Actually, I was suggesting that looking like chumps and being played by the Republicans to make the immigration system worse and more cruel was probably not something that appeals to many of the more mainstream Democrats.
Funny thing, I never make arguments about leftist purity but you keep shrieking about me being a DFH who demands leftist purity. Maybe, just a suggestion here, you could try reading my words and replying to what I actually say instead of arguing with the imaginary leftist in your head?
There is exactly zero probability of the Democrats getting a LESS cruel and racist immigration policy out of the Republicans and you know it was well as I do. The result of any deal is guaranteed to be increased racism, increased cruelty, and increased violence at the border.
Now if you mean "I think it's wise for Biden to give the Republicans increased border cruelty and racism in exchange for weapons to Ukraine" that's a possibly valid argument. But if you think that Biden can somehow get a less cruel and racist border policy out of the Republicans you're delusional.
I've read your links cousin, I think they match up more or less with my own observations about Democratic voters. I'm not, actually, some sort of delusional purity obsessed lunatic like you keep wanting to pretend I am.
I just think that Democrats going out of their way to look like chumps and suckers, or even just going out of their way to punch hippies, isn't really the winning strategy you seem to think it is.
And I do notice that "winning" in the most recent election, the first one after Dobbs and therefore the one with the biggest pro-Roe turnout, meant losing the House and keeping the Senate by a 50/50 with VP Harris as the tiebreaker. That's better than losing the Senate too, but if you're counting losing the House to the Republicans as a win then I'm not sure I agree with your metric for what counts as winning.
On immigration, I'd venture to suggest that perhaps, just maybe, Biden has kind of sucked on messaging and telling the truth? Look at this article written by noted "centrist" and book ban supporter Ingrid Jones. I'm sure the headline, saying that punching hippies is bold and smart appeals to you. But notice the problem in the article itself?
It keeps saying that Biden isn't enforcing immigration law, that Biden has discarded successful Trump era policies, that Biden is allowing unchecked illegal immigration. Notice that every single one of those statements is false?
Biden's border policy is just Trump's with an effort at better PR. He's gung ho about tossing kiddies into cages, separating families, arresting immigrants, and increasing funding to CBP and ICE. Yet the perception by the Ingrid Joneses of the world, the very enlightened centrists you argue Biden should be playing to, is that he's doing the opposite of what he's actually doing.
You can say that's a lot of things, but you can't say it's intelligently punching hippies in order to gain the support of the enlightened centrists.
I'm having difficulty finding polling among Democrats on border policy. So far all I've found are simple approve/disapprove polls on Biden's handling of the border and absent any sort of polling on WHY people disapprove it's hard to say what the enlightened centrist Democratic voters want.
I don't think they want more cruelty. For all my disagreement with the Democratic Party, generally speaking Democrats aren't actually in favor of increased cruelty on any given issue.
Here's some data backing up what I was actually saying regarding Israel and Biden's endless supply of weapons to that nation: only 36% of Democratic voters think giving more weapons to Israel is a good idea. It didn't provide a breakdown by your sacred divisions, but I don't think it really matters much do you? If 64% of Democratic voters are opposed to something I don't think suggesting Biden is foolish for continuing to do it is some sort of addled leftist purity thinking.
posted by sotonohito at 11:45 AM on December 28, 2023
Yes, in the 1950's they let in more non-whites. As they did during the Ellis Island era. That's still a racially based immigration policy built on a framework set in the late 1800's that was explicitly about maintaining America as a white ethnostate.
I mean, JFC, the fucking Brookings Institution admits the immigration system is based on systemic racism.
It's not like I'm making up stupid leftist purity bullshit here, saying that America's immigration system is both based on an explicitly racist framework and is still deeply racist is about as non-controversial as it gets and if anyone except your designated hippie to hate on had said it you'd be nodding sagely in agreement.
Artifice_Eternity Actually, I was suggesting that looking like chumps and being played by the Republicans to make the immigration system worse and more cruel was probably not something that appeals to many of the more mainstream Democrats.
Funny thing, I never make arguments about leftist purity but you keep shrieking about me being a DFH who demands leftist purity. Maybe, just a suggestion here, you could try reading my words and replying to what I actually say instead of arguing with the imaginary leftist in your head?
There is exactly zero probability of the Democrats getting a LESS cruel and racist immigration policy out of the Republicans and you know it was well as I do. The result of any deal is guaranteed to be increased racism, increased cruelty, and increased violence at the border.
Now if you mean "I think it's wise for Biden to give the Republicans increased border cruelty and racism in exchange for weapons to Ukraine" that's a possibly valid argument. But if you think that Biden can somehow get a less cruel and racist border policy out of the Republicans you're delusional.
I've read your links cousin, I think they match up more or less with my own observations about Democratic voters. I'm not, actually, some sort of delusional purity obsessed lunatic like you keep wanting to pretend I am.
I just think that Democrats going out of their way to look like chumps and suckers, or even just going out of their way to punch hippies, isn't really the winning strategy you seem to think it is.
And I do notice that "winning" in the most recent election, the first one after Dobbs and therefore the one with the biggest pro-Roe turnout, meant losing the House and keeping the Senate by a 50/50 with VP Harris as the tiebreaker. That's better than losing the Senate too, but if you're counting losing the House to the Republicans as a win then I'm not sure I agree with your metric for what counts as winning.
On immigration, I'd venture to suggest that perhaps, just maybe, Biden has kind of sucked on messaging and telling the truth? Look at this article written by noted "centrist" and book ban supporter Ingrid Jones. I'm sure the headline, saying that punching hippies is bold and smart appeals to you. But notice the problem in the article itself?
It keeps saying that Biden isn't enforcing immigration law, that Biden has discarded successful Trump era policies, that Biden is allowing unchecked illegal immigration. Notice that every single one of those statements is false?
Biden's border policy is just Trump's with an effort at better PR. He's gung ho about tossing kiddies into cages, separating families, arresting immigrants, and increasing funding to CBP and ICE. Yet the perception by the Ingrid Joneses of the world, the very enlightened centrists you argue Biden should be playing to, is that he's doing the opposite of what he's actually doing.
You can say that's a lot of things, but you can't say it's intelligently punching hippies in order to gain the support of the enlightened centrists.
I'm having difficulty finding polling among Democrats on border policy. So far all I've found are simple approve/disapprove polls on Biden's handling of the border and absent any sort of polling on WHY people disapprove it's hard to say what the enlightened centrist Democratic voters want.
I don't think they want more cruelty. For all my disagreement with the Democratic Party, generally speaking Democrats aren't actually in favor of increased cruelty on any given issue.
Here's some data backing up what I was actually saying regarding Israel and Biden's endless supply of weapons to that nation: only 36% of Democratic voters think giving more weapons to Israel is a good idea. It didn't provide a breakdown by your sacred divisions, but I don't think it really matters much do you? If 64% of Democratic voters are opposed to something I don't think suggesting Biden is foolish for continuing to do it is some sort of addled leftist purity thinking.
posted by sotonohito at 11:45 AM on December 28, 2023
The border is the right's issue, and to make it only about the border is their plan, and they are experts at mind control in order for their billionaire agenda to survive elections. Bernie was for more closed borders but it never got mentioned that way, he wisely just let people believe, same with his hands-off guns position. The trick is to prioritize issues for elections to maximize votes, which for Democrats means not making it about borders, but something else. Losing voters over some downplay is a ridiculous notion, because they aren't reliable voters and they don't get the winking game at the home stretch pivot. Going louder left for them is absurd in a conservative era because most new voters are still dealing with their childhood conservatism (emotionally stalled and refusing to vote among the signs). Speaking of the dreaded "moderate" voters, it helps to realistically see them as hesitant part-time voters, because a non-vote for the Democratic nominee at decision time is an invisible half-vote for the Republican nominee, because voting is just a large cancelling ledger. It would be like not showing up to battle the invaders and expecting to set the town agenda after the town is gone. What is always on the ballot is lower taxes for the wealthy, fundamentalist federal judges, and gutting environmental regulation, every single election.
posted by Brian B. at 8:50 AM on December 29, 2023
posted by Brian B. at 8:50 AM on December 29, 2023
Brian B., I don't really understand all of of your comment, but what you seem to be saying about moderate voters doesn't jibe with the research I quoted a few comments up.
Moderates who want to see more restrictions on immigration are the largest single group in the Dem electorate -- and one of its most reliable voting blocs. They are definitely not "hesitant part-time voters".
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:07 PM on December 31, 2023
Moderates who want to see more restrictions on immigration are the largest single group in the Dem electorate -- and one of its most reliable voting blocs. They are definitely not "hesitant part-time voters".
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 7:07 PM on December 31, 2023
You're putting a lot of weight into "largest single group" when, in fact, they're 28%.
Per the polling you keep citing 22.4% [1] want to keep foreigners out of America while 77.6% aren't opposed to increased immigration.
We see, again, how "Vote Blue No Matter Who" only flows to the left and it is apparently totally permissible for right leaning Democrats to sit out the elections if the candidate in question is too liberal for their taste.
We're back to the contradiction where the left big enough and powerful enough to be blamed for any and all Democratic failures, we didn't "Vote Blue No Matter Who" hard enough apparently, while never being important enough to get anything but an upraised middle finger and a hearty "fuck you hippy" when the Democrats win.
I'm going to suggest that perhaps, just fucking MAYBE, you should reserve some of your vitriol for those Democratic Mainstays you say must be catered to 100% of the time when they don't vote hard enough for a more leftist candidate? Just a thought.
[1] That's about 80% of the 28% of "Democratic Mainstays" in the study you like.
posted by sotonohito at 7:20 AM on January 1 [1 favorite]
Per the polling you keep citing 22.4% [1] want to keep foreigners out of America while 77.6% aren't opposed to increased immigration.
We see, again, how "Vote Blue No Matter Who" only flows to the left and it is apparently totally permissible for right leaning Democrats to sit out the elections if the candidate in question is too liberal for their taste.
We're back to the contradiction where the left big enough and powerful enough to be blamed for any and all Democratic failures, we didn't "Vote Blue No Matter Who" hard enough apparently, while never being important enough to get anything but an upraised middle finger and a hearty "fuck you hippy" when the Democrats win.
I'm going to suggest that perhaps, just fucking MAYBE, you should reserve some of your vitriol for those Democratic Mainstays you say must be catered to 100% of the time when they don't vote hard enough for a more leftist candidate? Just a thought.
[1] That's about 80% of the 28% of "Democratic Mainstays" in the study you like.
posted by sotonohito at 7:20 AM on January 1 [1 favorite]
but what you seem to be saying about moderate voters doesn't jibe with the research
The word is problematic and therefore useless as a tool of research unless they have a moderate party. I'm suggesting that "moderate voter" be recognized for lack of cohesion and consistency instead of currently conceived as having a lack of passion on a cherry picked issue (which might be a distraction strategy by the opposition). Partisan elections are about candidates and the goal is a majority. Moderate voting would then be part-time and selective on participation. There can be moderate democrats or otherwise, but a moderate voter means something about voting itself.
posted by Brian B. at 7:26 AM on January 2
The word is problematic and therefore useless as a tool of research unless they have a moderate party. I'm suggesting that "moderate voter" be recognized for lack of cohesion and consistency instead of currently conceived as having a lack of passion on a cherry picked issue (which might be a distraction strategy by the opposition). Partisan elections are about candidates and the goal is a majority. Moderate voting would then be part-time and selective on participation. There can be moderate democrats or otherwise, but a moderate voter means something about voting itself.
posted by Brian B. at 7:26 AM on January 2
« Older The new, sweet oranges quickly displaced the... | Fedco drops all varieties by Syngenta Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by CCBC at 4:06 PM on December 2, 2023 [33 favorites]