The rules may be different for Democrats and Republicans, but those are the ones by which this game must be played. If Trump is to be defeated, it can only be by honestly adhering to norms and principles that Trump has long since torn down. The Democrats must make the case to voters that the election is a choice between these norms, and permanent rule by an explicitly fascist political party.
If the best way to defeat Trump was to honestly adhere to established political norms, Hillary Clinton would have won the election in 2016. There has hardly been a more established political candidate than Clinton. Yet, she lost. I think a candidate adhering to norms matters more when the people are generally happy with the status quo, but when the people become less satisfied with the status quo, candidates adhering to norms matters less. In fact, I think as people become less satisfied with the status quo, the more they like candidates to deviate from the norm. I mean, if people aren’t very satisfied with normal, offering them more normal probably isn’t going to get you very far.
what we’re seeing isn’t being “unhappy with the status quo”. It’s believing in fairy tales. It’s believing in conspiracy theories.
I think when people become unhappy with the status quo, they are more likely to believe in fairy tales and conspiracy theories, especially if those messages are coming from a seemingly strong leader promising a return to glory. I don’t think it would be a terrible thing if Democrats tried harder to look strong and promise that they’re going to make America great, only without the conspiracy theories and scapegoats. I think a lot of people really need to hear that message, and if the “good guys” aren’t willing to offer that message, someone with less than honorable intentions will.
Dems promise status quo. America as a whole does not want status quo. Cost of living keeps going up while technology rips apart society in ways we would have never predicted a decade ago.
As long as the only alternative to Trump is status quo, Trump will always win. The DNC’s only real concern is maintaining the current power structure. But it’s like Blockbuster ignoring the rise of Netflix. The winds have changed. The future is going to be radically different for better and definitely for worse.
Yeah, there are definitely some parts of this where I disagree with the author, but the very next paragraph makes a good point
A fascist party can only come to power when it attracts multiple constituencies, whose members do not think of themselves as fascists. The fascist leader represents the compromises necessarily involved in democratic politics as unmanly. But fascism needs to appeal to a broader ideology than the mere destruction of democracy. Patriarchy is just such an ideology. By doubling down on traditional gender roles, by the restriction of women’s rights, and by villainizing LGBT, a fascist party attracts religious conservatives. The strutting masculinity of the fascist leader appeals to powerful business elites, who tend to view the world in terms of “winners” and “losers”, and often view their own success as a product of their masculinity (it doesn’t hurt if the leader also vows to promote their interests). Survival in a violent struggle for power is the ultimate badge of honor in the fascist worldview. Violence leans into and supports it.
So long as we’re still in an electoral situation, violence is a bad look. I’m not even saying the Democratic party should or can do anything here, I’m just underscoring that this weekend’s events has made this election tougher to win.
I would like to clarify that I am not in favor of assassination attempts, but I’m just not convinced that simply playing the game by the rules is the most effective method for defeating fascism. That being said, I don’t claim to know what is, necessarily. However, it seems to me that, in most cases, defeating fascism has required using at least some violence.
If the best way to defeat Trump was to honestly adhere to established political norms, Hillary Clinton would have won the election in 2016. There has hardly been a more established political candidate than Clinton. Yet, she lost. I think a candidate adhering to norms matters more when the people are generally happy with the status quo, but when the people become less satisfied with the status quo, candidates adhering to norms matters less. In fact, I think as people become less satisfied with the status quo, the more they like candidates to deviate from the norm. I mean, if people aren’t very satisfied with normal, offering them more normal probably isn’t going to get you very far.
Removed by mod
Trump got elected because the US electoral system is undemocratic. He doesn’t need 51%, not even close.
I think when people become unhappy with the status quo, they are more likely to believe in fairy tales and conspiracy theories, especially if those messages are coming from a seemingly strong leader promising a return to glory. I don’t think it would be a terrible thing if Democrats tried harder to look strong and promise that they’re going to make America great, only without the conspiracy theories and scapegoats. I think a lot of people really need to hear that message, and if the “good guys” aren’t willing to offer that message, someone with less than honorable intentions will.
Dems promise status quo. America as a whole does not want status quo. Cost of living keeps going up while technology rips apart society in ways we would have never predicted a decade ago.
As long as the only alternative to Trump is status quo, Trump will always win. The DNC’s only real concern is maintaining the current power structure. But it’s like Blockbuster ignoring the rise of Netflix. The winds have changed. The future is going to be radically different for better and definitely for worse.
Yeah, there are definitely some parts of this where I disagree with the author, but the very next paragraph makes a good point
So long as we’re still in an electoral situation, violence is a bad look. I’m not even saying the Democratic party should or can do anything here, I’m just underscoring that this weekend’s event
shas made this election tougher to win.e; grammar are confusing
I would like to clarify that I am not in favor of assassination attempts, but I’m just not convinced that simply playing the game by the rules is the most effective method for defeating fascism. That being said, I don’t claim to know what is, necessarily. However, it seems to me that, in most cases, defeating fascism has required using at least some violence.
Great point. It took an entire world war that one time.
The norms being a problem is why trump exists.