5 ms·

Ironically, I suspect the biggest threat to democracy would be a staunch refusal to admit that your political opponents are human beings and do, on a fair numbe

by roenxi 2y ago

Ironically, I suspect the biggest threat to democracy would be a staunch refusal to admit that your political opponents are human beings and do, on a fair number of issues, have good points. Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line. I take heart in the US case that nearly 10 years into the Trump era the Democrats are being beaten back from "Nazi" to "Weird". My hope is that in another 5 years they'll retreat to "well we just don't agree with some of this".

candiddevmike 2y ago
> Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line. From my perspective, only one group wants to marginalize groups of people and roll back decades of social progress. For the people being unjustly targeted, it is becoming a fight to the death for them if they want to maintain their dignity, autonomy, and quality of life. Not to mention the whole electing a dictator thing. Kinda weird.
Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
Unironically, the republicans aren't shy of calling liberal opponents 'nazi' either. Do conservatives have any responsibility to also tone down their rhetoric? There was a time when the two parties had a very different dynamic and could, at times, work together when a given policy was in line with both. I think this degraded and then the tea-party conservatives broke it for good, opting for a much more confrontational style where democrats ceased being people with a different opinion and started being 'the enemy' with whom no compromise would be entertained. This trend continued, even strengthened into MAGA trumpism. Biden's bipartisan immigration bill for example, which had many components which conservatives wanted, was rejected because Trump thought it would be seen as 'a win' for 'the other side'. I can't think of an example where a bipartisan bill was rejected by the democrats for similar reasoning.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lasc4r 2y ago
Republicans have been calling their "enemies" communists for years, the actual politicians that the people elected. Democrat politicians don't generally behave like that, but if there ever were a time this would be it.
Yiin 2y ago
I see your point and I do agree completely. From what I've witnessed many people see democrats being "rotten to their core" which makes the discussion not about values or policies, but fundamental stance on how to govern a country. Who cares about good points of democrats if those points are perceived to push a hidden agenda, while whatever you don't agree with is them "pushing agenda in plain view!".
kerkeslager 2y ago
> Ironically, I suspect the biggest threat to democracy would be a staunch refusal to admit that your political opponents are human beings and do, on a fair number of issues, have good points. Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line. The Republicans are human being who do, on a fair number of issues, have good points. The problem is they also literally are saying: "Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it any more!"[1] "Get out – you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote."[1] And they aren't afraid to put physical violence behind those words. They literally broke into the capital building. So, the fate of the country is actually on the line. Meanwhile, you don't seem to take any issue with Republicans saying their opponents are socialists, nazis, and communists, somehow all at once, because we want to do something as benign as provide healthcare for poor people. Is it only okay to say the fate of the country is at stake when Republicans do it? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trump-speech-no-need-to-vote-future https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trum... EDIT: I'd be interested in hearing where downvoters think I'm wrong.
- marcuskane2 2y ago
  You've highlighted a couple snippets of a quote, which taken out of context and interpreted through a cynical and paranoid lens, could be taken to mean "There won't be voting anymore after I'm elected". Of course, everyone understands this wasn't the intended meaning, so nobody really cares. Trump is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things, so focusing on these type of "gotcha" intentional misinterpretations seems unnecessary. You might have a more compelling argument if you picked any of the many things he's said where the actual intended meaning was horrible.
  - candiddevmike 2y ago
    Actually there are quite a few instances where Trump "said the quiet part out loud", such as with the January 6 insurrection. Passing off his comments as "just Trump saying funny things" is dismissive and dangerous.
MSFT_Edging 2y ago
> I take heart in the US case that nearly 10 years into the Trump era the Democrats are being beaten back from "Nazi" to "Weird". My hope is that in another 5 years they'll retreat to "well we just don't agree with some of this". This seriously minimizes the issue of the dichotomy to the point of bad faith.

by roenxi 2y ago

candiddevmike 2y ago

> Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line. From my perspective, only one group wants to marginalize groups of people and roll back decades of social progress. For the people being unjustly targeted, it is becoming a fight to the death for them if they want to maintain their dignity, autonomy, and quality of life. Not to mention the whole electing a dictator thing. Kinda weird.

Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago

Unironically, the republicans aren't shy of calling liberal opponents 'nazi' either. Do conservatives have any responsibility to also tone down their rhetoric? There was a time when the two parties had a very different dynamic and could, at times, work together when a given policy was in line with both. I think this degraded and then the tea-party conservatives broke it for good, opting for a much more confrontational style where democrats ceased being people with a different opinion and started being 'the enemy' with whom no compromise would be entertained. This trend continued, even strengthened into MAGA trumpism. Biden's bipartisan immigration bill for example, which had many components which conservatives wanted, was rejected because Trump thought it would be seen as 'a win' for 'the other side'. I can't think of an example where a bipartisan bill was rejected by the democrats for similar reasoning.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lasc4r 2y ago

Republicans have been calling their "enemies" communists for years, the actual politicians that the people elected. Democrat politicians don't generally behave like that, but if there ever were a time this would be it.

Yiin 2y ago

I see your point and I do agree completely. From what I've witnessed many people see democrats being "rotten to their core" which makes the discussion not about values or policies, but fundamental stance on how to govern a country. Who cares about good points of democrats if those points are perceived to push a hidden agenda, while whatever you don't agree with is them "pushing agenda in plain view!".

kerkeslager 2y ago

> Ironically, I suspect the biggest threat to democracy would be a staunch refusal to admit that your political opponents are human beings and do, on a fair number of issues, have good points. Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line. The Republicans are human being who do, on a fair number of issues, have good points. The problem is they also literally are saying: "Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it any more!"[1] "Get out – you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote."[1] And they aren't afraid to put physical violence behind those words. They literally broke into the capital building. So, the fate of the country is actually on the line. Meanwhile, you don't seem to take any issue with Republicans saying their opponents are socialists, nazis, and communists, somehow all at once, because we want to do something as benign as provide healthcare for poor people. Is it only okay to say the fate of the country is at stake when Republicans do it? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trump-speech-no-need-to-vote-future https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trum... EDIT: I'd be interested in hearing where downvoters think I'm wrong.

marcuskane2 2y ago
You've highlighted a couple snippets of a quote, which taken out of context and interpreted through a cynical and paranoid lens, could be taken to mean "There won't be voting anymore after I'm elected". Of course, everyone understands this wasn't the intended meaning, so nobody really cares. Trump is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things, so focusing on these type of "gotcha" intentional misinterpretations seems unnecessary. You might have a more compelling argument if you picked any of the many things he's said where the actual intended meaning was horrible.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  Actually there are quite a few instances where Trump "said the quiet part out loud", such as with the January 6 insurrection. Passing off his comments as "just Trump saying funny things" is dismissive and dangerous.

MSFT_Edging 2y ago

> I take heart in the US case that nearly 10 years into the Trump era the Democrats are being beaten back from "Nazi" to "Weird". My hope is that in another 5 years they'll retreat to "well we just don't agree with some of this". This seriously minimizes the issue of the dichotomy to the point of bad faith.