This is the fascism trap. It’s tempting to fight back “in kind” once the rules start going out the window, and obviously by the letter of their decision it would be perfectly legal for him to just assassinate them as an official act and then nominate all new justices. But this is a trap. The further we all abandon the unspoken rules that keep things on the rails, the worse it gets. You have to fight back on the tilted table without yourself breaking any rules you can avoid breaking.
It’s a shitty situation but that is the strategy, as far as I understand it.
(And I know, or I assume, that you weren’t serious - but still it applies, even to more minor things like solving the problem by nominating 10 new justices or things like that.)
Isn’t this the same “taking the high road” strategy that has consistently put democrats at a disadvantage when dealing with a side that doesn’t care about the rules? I bring this up because I’m trying to get an understanding for this framework of thinking. In my heart, I know it’s probably the correct path, but I know it’s not the best one when dealing with the current political game.
So I am basing this on a book “How Democracies Die” that describes a series of case studies of nations that were threatened by a fascist movement, and those that succumbed, and those that defeated it, and what were the differences and tactics involved.
It’s fairly depressing, because a lot of times once it reaches a certain point there aren’t a lot of good options, but it is based on real outcomes and I think it’s instructive.
The Democrats’ “taking the high road” that they like to do is different. Assassinating the justices would be responding in kind. Growing the court would be a dangerous escalation. Making a crash priority out of impeaching them, like equal in priority with taking your fucking vacation for July 4th or passing a resolution honoring National Snails Day or whatever useless thing that are doing instead, would be a proper response (to me). Holding a hand-wringing press conference and then doing more or less nothing other than crossing fingers and hoping that this November doesn’t bring the end of the Republic - I.e. taking the high road, i.e. apparently what they’ve decided to do - seems like a pretty sure road to calamity. That, I’m 100% not advocating as the right course of action, although I can see how it might have sounded like I was.
If you’re afraid republicans are going to shoot democracy in the face, the answer is not to shoot democracy in the face before they can do it.
Everyone seems to think that it’s naïve to not do first what we expect the republicans to do once they get the power. But just because the Supreme Court made fascism legal, that doesn’t make it any less fascism to do it.
America’s dependence on unspoken rules and the assumption that people would abide by those rules is the weakest link in American democracy. It was just a matter of time until someone decided to exploit that…
Part of the point of the book was, every country is like that. You can’t just write some stuff in a book and expect it to do anything. People will follow them, or not, or they will as the current Court is doing find absurd reasons to argue why they are following the rules when they are not. At the end of the day it’s just a book.
Habits are strong, shared values are strong, codes and norms and laws and traditions are strong. But they’re not invulnerable. Fire up people’s loyalty and sense of justice and tell them that the leader is the law and that’s now the most important thing, and watch all the laws in the world crumble and tear like wet tissues. It doesn’t matter if it’s just in people’s heads or it’s written in stone on every street corner. It doesn’t make a difference.
This is the fascism trap. It’s tempting to fight back “in kind” once the rules start going out the window, and obviously by the letter of their decision it would be perfectly legal for him to just assassinate them as an official act and then nominate all new justices. But this is a trap. The further we all abandon the unspoken rules that keep things on the rails, the worse it gets. You have to fight back on the tilted table without yourself breaking any rules you can avoid breaking.
It’s a shitty situation but that is the strategy, as far as I understand it.
(And I know, or I assume, that you weren’t serious - but still it applies, even to more minor things like solving the problem by nominating 10 new justices or things like that.)
Isn’t this the same “taking the high road” strategy that has consistently put democrats at a disadvantage when dealing with a side that doesn’t care about the rules? I bring this up because I’m trying to get an understanding for this framework of thinking. In my heart, I know it’s probably the correct path, but I know it’s not the best one when dealing with the current political game.
So I am basing this on a book “How Democracies Die” that describes a series of case studies of nations that were threatened by a fascist movement, and those that succumbed, and those that defeated it, and what were the differences and tactics involved.
It’s fairly depressing, because a lot of times once it reaches a certain point there aren’t a lot of good options, but it is based on real outcomes and I think it’s instructive.
The Democrats’ “taking the high road” that they like to do is different. Assassinating the justices would be responding in kind. Growing the court would be a dangerous escalation. Making a crash priority out of impeaching them, like equal in priority with taking your fucking vacation for July 4th or passing a resolution honoring National Snails Day or whatever useless thing that are doing instead, would be a proper response (to me). Holding a hand-wringing press conference and then doing more or less nothing other than crossing fingers and hoping that this November doesn’t bring the end of the Republic - I.e. taking the high road, i.e. apparently what they’ve decided to do - seems like a pretty sure road to calamity. That, I’m 100% not advocating as the right course of action, although I can see how it might have sounded like I was.
You gotta screw the whole system up. But not like how the fascists would. Going to filibuster the SCOTUS? Fill it with 99 judges.
The left: “we can’t break decorum and unwritten rules, or the right will do it even worse!”
The right: does it even worse anyway.
Liberals.
Leftists have been screaming at them for ages to fucking do something.
Liberals refuse to break rules that exist entirely within their own heads.
Please allow me to exemplify your comment. Ahem… Dear DNC, FUCKING DO SOMETHING!!!
The democrats are not leftists
If you’re afraid republicans are going to shoot democracy in the face, the answer is not to shoot democracy in the face before they can do it.
Everyone seems to think that it’s naïve to not do first what we expect the republicans to do once they get the power. But just because the Supreme Court made fascism legal, that doesn’t make it any less fascism to do it.
No, this isn’t The Facism Trap, this is not falling for the paradox of tolerance.
America’s dependence on unspoken rules and the assumption that people would abide by those rules is the weakest link in American democracy. It was just a matter of time until someone decided to exploit that…
Part of the point of the book was, every country is like that. You can’t just write some stuff in a book and expect it to do anything. People will follow them, or not, or they will as the current Court is doing find absurd reasons to argue why they are following the rules when they are not. At the end of the day it’s just a book.
Habits are strong, shared values are strong, codes and norms and laws and traditions are strong. But they’re not invulnerable. Fire up people’s loyalty and sense of justice and tell them that the leader is the law and that’s now the most important thing, and watch all the laws in the world crumble and tear like wet tissues. It doesn’t matter if it’s just in people’s heads or it’s written in stone on every street corner. It doesn’t make a difference.
🤡
It’s getting worse either way it seems, frankly it’s getting to the point that drastic action now could prevent worse harm in future.
They don’t have to be dead. He can just declare they’re no longer the justices. If they want to argue that’s not how it works, good.
Removed by mod
Well put.