Charlie and those he quotes may be exaggerating Trump’s capability to become a dictator if elected next year, but they are surely right about his desire to govern dictatorially and his general threat to the country. The man is a self-announced enemy of the republic - its Constitution, its laws including those governing selecting presiden…
Charlie and those he quotes may be exaggerating Trump’s capability to become a dictator if elected next year, but they are surely right about his desire to govern dictatorially and his general threat to the country. The man is a self-announced enemy of the republic - its Constitution, its laws including those governing selecting presidents by democratic elections, its separation of powers and limits on executive power, and its liberal order. Beyond that he is unfit by knowledge, temperament, judgment, character, and mental stability to command the armed forces or even control the most useless and insignificant federal bureaucracy. It is good to be looking at more ways to stop him.
One place to start is by trying honestly to understand why so many people support him and what might be done to change some of their minds. Writing them off as ignorant, unlettered, bigoted halfwits may provide snarky lefties with an apparently much desired group of people to whom they can feel superior (see a few Bulwark comment threads), but it will do nothing for the job at hand. For millions of them are not those things at all. What many of them are is scared. People often make bad decisions when they are scared. And a lot of people willing to vote for Trump without liking him are very frightened, interestingly of the same thing Charlie, JVL, and those they quote are worried about. They worry that a victory by the Dems next year will lead to a one party authoritarian state.
I think they are wrong in that fear, but I cans see they do have some reasons for it. It is true that there is a powerful and influential authoritarian left wing within the Democratic party. It is true that crusading zealots of the green faith want to diminish the middle class’s standard of living and restrict its members range of choices in many areas of life. It is true that many people in the federal bureaucracy favor the Democrats and sometimes show that bias in their work. It is true that the government has pressured social media organizations to suppress dissent. It is true that political undesirables from parents griping at school board meetings to anti-abortion protesters to those poor losers who followed Trump’s orders to attack the Capitol on January 6th have been treated unusually harshly by officials, while leftist rioters and arsonists have been let off easily. It is true that there is a lot of anti-white, anti-Christian, and antisemitic bigotry that is tolerated or even encouraged within some parts of the Democratic party. It is true that many Democrats want citizens to be disarmed and reasonable to wonder whether people wanting to make you helpless have something bad in mind for you.
Understanding that people fearful of the Dems have their reasons can lead to a possible way to change their minds. Influential Democrats from Biden on down could behave as moderates, as moderate somewhat toward the left end of the center centrists and reject the plans and aspirations of the left and commit to fair and equal treatment and justice for all. (That would require disappointing the party’s hard leftists and risking them defecting to RFK, Stein, or West, but that risk might be small. If Trump is the Republicans’ nominee, it seems likely most of the lefties would get over their tantrums and vote for Biden out of hatred for Trump.) That just might pry enough fearful people away from Trump to make a difference. Regardless it would be a good thing for the country, since moderate Democrats are better for the nation than the party’s socialist, green new deal, bigoted, and pro-Hamas factions.
Some commenters on this site tend to reject the idea that anything done by Democrats could ever be so objectionable to any reasonable and decent person as to make someone vote Republican instead. If a Bulwark writer points out any issues on which large numbers of voters dislike D. policies or the proclivities of elements of the party, the response is often along the lines of "We're right; they're wrong; how dare you suggest that Democrats need to do something different to appeal to gettable voters, when they're really just bad people anyway."
I think the Democrats should definitely try to appeal to independants, moderates, and even moderate Republicans. But to suggest that they should be making overtures to try to sway Trump's base is just not realistic.
I agree, focus on those who might be reach-able -- but be careful who you write off as un-reach-able. Not everyone voting for Trump is part of his hardcore "base." Also, not everyone who can be reached will be reached the first time you talk to them. There's something to be said for repeatedly, calmly making your case -- also, for listening a lot.
And there's nothing wrong with "making overtures" -- in fact, I think you gotta continue making /some/ kind of overtures -- just make thoughtful choices about how /much/ time and energy you pour into /which/ overtures.
If the people who came before us gave up easily, we wouldn't have what we have.
Fevers break. And we have to make sure that, when they do, people feel like they have something they can come back to (not a snarling mob of "told-you-so".
I agree. The fear that Gary Wiggins delineates is not going to be assuaged by a few reasonable and calm discussions by moderates, either center-left or center-right.
As thoughtful, compassionate human beings, yes, we must NOT berate and ridicule those people who have fallen under the spell of the FOX (and other right-wing media) propaganda. They are locked in their beliefs, just as surely as any religious believers are locked into the beliefs they have been taught since childhood.
Trumpism and MAGAdom have become part of their identities, and challenging anyone's identity presents a psychologically existential threat. Breaking free from any part of one's identity must come from within, by reading and being open to opposing and challenging ideas. Being willing to alter one's identity.
I've foolishly tried to be an opposing viewpoint to Trump supporters, and I learned my lesson. You don't try to mess with someone's identity, even if the identity is delusional and self-destructive.
Charlie and those he quotes may be exaggerating Trump’s capability to become a dictator if elected next year, but they are surely right about his desire to govern dictatorially and his general threat to the country. The man is a self-announced enemy of the republic - its Constitution, its laws including those governing selecting presidents by democratic elections, its separation of powers and limits on executive power, and its liberal order. Beyond that he is unfit by knowledge, temperament, judgment, character, and mental stability to command the armed forces or even control the most useless and insignificant federal bureaucracy. It is good to be looking at more ways to stop him.
One place to start is by trying honestly to understand why so many people support him and what might be done to change some of their minds. Writing them off as ignorant, unlettered, bigoted halfwits may provide snarky lefties with an apparently much desired group of people to whom they can feel superior (see a few Bulwark comment threads), but it will do nothing for the job at hand. For millions of them are not those things at all. What many of them are is scared. People often make bad decisions when they are scared. And a lot of people willing to vote for Trump without liking him are very frightened, interestingly of the same thing Charlie, JVL, and those they quote are worried about. They worry that a victory by the Dems next year will lead to a one party authoritarian state.
I think they are wrong in that fear, but I cans see they do have some reasons for it. It is true that there is a powerful and influential authoritarian left wing within the Democratic party. It is true that crusading zealots of the green faith want to diminish the middle class’s standard of living and restrict its members range of choices in many areas of life. It is true that many people in the federal bureaucracy favor the Democrats and sometimes show that bias in their work. It is true that the government has pressured social media organizations to suppress dissent. It is true that political undesirables from parents griping at school board meetings to anti-abortion protesters to those poor losers who followed Trump’s orders to attack the Capitol on January 6th have been treated unusually harshly by officials, while leftist rioters and arsonists have been let off easily. It is true that there is a lot of anti-white, anti-Christian, and antisemitic bigotry that is tolerated or even encouraged within some parts of the Democratic party. It is true that many Democrats want citizens to be disarmed and reasonable to wonder whether people wanting to make you helpless have something bad in mind for you.
Understanding that people fearful of the Dems have their reasons can lead to a possible way to change their minds. Influential Democrats from Biden on down could behave as moderates, as moderate somewhat toward the left end of the center centrists and reject the plans and aspirations of the left and commit to fair and equal treatment and justice for all. (That would require disappointing the party’s hard leftists and risking them defecting to RFK, Stein, or West, but that risk might be small. If Trump is the Republicans’ nominee, it seems likely most of the lefties would get over their tantrums and vote for Biden out of hatred for Trump.) That just might pry enough fearful people away from Trump to make a difference. Regardless it would be a good thing for the country, since moderate Democrats are better for the nation than the party’s socialist, green new deal, bigoted, and pro-Hamas factions.
Some commenters on this site tend to reject the idea that anything done by Democrats could ever be so objectionable to any reasonable and decent person as to make someone vote Republican instead. If a Bulwark writer points out any issues on which large numbers of voters dislike D. policies or the proclivities of elements of the party, the response is often along the lines of "We're right; they're wrong; how dare you suggest that Democrats need to do something different to appeal to gettable voters, when they're really just bad people anyway."
I think the Democrats should definitely try to appeal to independants, moderates, and even moderate Republicans. But to suggest that they should be making overtures to try to sway Trump's base is just not realistic.
I agree, focus on those who might be reach-able -- but be careful who you write off as un-reach-able. Not everyone voting for Trump is part of his hardcore "base." Also, not everyone who can be reached will be reached the first time you talk to them. There's something to be said for repeatedly, calmly making your case -- also, for listening a lot.
And there's nothing wrong with "making overtures" -- in fact, I think you gotta continue making /some/ kind of overtures -- just make thoughtful choices about how /much/ time and energy you pour into /which/ overtures.
If the people who came before us gave up easily, we wouldn't have what we have.
Fevers break. And we have to make sure that, when they do, people feel like they have something they can come back to (not a snarling mob of "told-you-so".
I agree. The fear that Gary Wiggins delineates is not going to be assuaged by a few reasonable and calm discussions by moderates, either center-left or center-right.
As thoughtful, compassionate human beings, yes, we must NOT berate and ridicule those people who have fallen under the spell of the FOX (and other right-wing media) propaganda. They are locked in their beliefs, just as surely as any religious believers are locked into the beliefs they have been taught since childhood.
Trumpism and MAGAdom have become part of their identities, and challenging anyone's identity presents a psychologically existential threat. Breaking free from any part of one's identity must come from within, by reading and being open to opposing and challenging ideas. Being willing to alter one's identity.
I've foolishly tried to be an opposing viewpoint to Trump supporters, and I learned my lesson. You don't try to mess with someone's identity, even if the identity is delusional and self-destructive.