> Well they're not wrong? The choices were fascists... That's the problem with using "there is no alternative"-style politics push a unpopular positions agains

> Well they're not wrong? The choices were fascists... That's the problem with using "there is no alternative"-style politics push a unpopular positions against resistance and suppress dissent: you give "fascists" the opportunity to become popular by giving voice to popular sentiments (e.g. fuck the neoliberal status quo, we want our factories back). > Most people would expect the majority to think that literally anything is better than fascism, but the majority doesn't think that. The error was liberals though they could rely on that kind of revulsion so they wouldn't have to bend to popular opinion in unfashionable places they don't like visiting. That only works so long before people get sick of it. I mean: for all the fearmongering about looming authoritarianism, did the Democratic party ever stray far from its partisan brand? Did it ever become a kind of united popular front, dropping divisive positions and adopting popular but off-brand ones to meet the threat? No, it did not. And the fact that it did not do those things completely undermined its whole "threat of fascism case." It made it sound like manipulative garbage, basically.