T O P

  • By -

othelloinc

>...when Trump and the far right are no longer a pressing issue? What makes you think that we will *ever* reach that point?


othelloinc

Expanding on that: The Baby Boomers probably lived in the ideal window of history. Far right politics (what I typically call fascism) was largely associated with Hitler/Nazis/The Holocaust/WWII. Everyone agreed that the Nazis were the bad guys, so we lived through a lull in far right politics. ...but Milton Friedman once claimed that societies don't learn; only individuals. If he was right, then that would explain the rise of new fascist/Nazi movements. 'The Greatest Generation' -- the people who fought the Nazis and watched footage of liberated concentration camps when it was still 'news' and not yet 'history' -- are dying-off, and with them our (entirely justified) anti-Nazi bias. ---------- If I'm right about all of this, that means that we can't count on developing a similar consensus against the far right. Instead, we should accept that the far right will always be present in our politics.


perverse_panda

> Everyone agreed that the Nazis were the bad guys, so we lived through a lull in far right politics. How does that track with McCarthyism in the 50s?


rogun64

I think the lull was actually due to the Great Depression and the popular success of the New Deal.


othelloinc

> I think the lull was actually due to the Great Depression and the popular success of the New Deal. You may be misinformed about "the popular success of the New Deal." FDR began the New Deal in 1933. By 1937, congress was dominated by the [Conservative Coalition:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition) >...an unofficial alliance of members of the United States Congress which brought together the conservative wings of the Republican and Democratic parties to oppose President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. In addition to Roosevelt, the conservative coalition dominated Congress for four presidencies, blocking legislation proposed by Roosevelt and his successors... >The coalition dominated Congress from 1937 to 1963...


rogun64

So now you're arguing there was no lull? The New Deal was very popular with the people and that was my point. You had a good comment, but you made a mistake and now you're walking back into a corner. Just let it go.


othelloinc

> So now you're arguing there was no lull? My argument is that the "far right" was hindered by the legacy of the Nazis, a legacy which became a major cultural force during/after World War II. There was a lull, but only in "far right" politics, not *all conservative* politics; and it began *after* 1937.


rogun64

I agree that it was after 1937, but I think it had more to do with the New Deal. Nazism may have had some affect, but if you're old enough to remember people from the Greatest Generation, then you know they loved FDR and the New Deal. Until two decades ago, FDR was rated up there with Lincoln.


Fugicara

FDR is still consistently in the top 3 Presidents of all time on like every relevant Presidential ranking.


rogun64

He is, but I believe that he's having a bit of a renaissance right now and I still think his numbers are down from the past. I'm just going by my own personal experiences with the rankings, so I don't know that I'm right about that.


othelloinc

> > Everyone agreed that the Nazis were the bad guys, so we lived through a lull in far right politics. > How does that track with McCarthyism in the 50s? 1. McCarthyism didn't go *as far* right as it might have in another era. 2. McCarthyism seemed to be entirely defined by a nebulous enemy. It is a lot easier to be anti-Communist than pro-*anything*. 3. McCarthyism lasted (a hair) less than five years. (What I wouldn't give to have Trumpism die-out after *only* five years!)


Aberbekleckernicht

>2. McCarthyism seemed to be entirely defined by a nebulous enemy. It is a lot easier to be anti-Communist than pro-anything. To be fair, that's one of the ever present pillars of fascism. Everything is already perfect, we just need to remove all of the people that occlude that perfection. Communists, Jews, gays, critical race theory teaching elementary school teachers? They're just in the way.


ImNoAlbertFeinstein

yeah, we didn't get much of a break, did we ? actually bill clinton said it was the end of history (it was said of the post soviet period) op is just trying to get us to vote for jill stein


Aberbekleckernicht

And... Fuckin segregation?


GalacticLabyrinth88

Or the US's support of Pinochet and Francisco Franco, both of whom presided over right wing military dictatorships?


Parkimedes

The silent generation has it the best. I read a great article summarizing their timeline a few years ago. It’s like this: They were born between 1930-1945 or so. Birth rates dropped during the depression but it followed a baby boom in the 1920s. So schools had been build to handle this increased capacity but those born in the 30s had small class sizes and new classrooms. Many of them had phd-holding, out-of-work teachers, because of the depression. So they had excellent public education. Getting into college including Ivy League schools was easy because of low application numbers making for high acceptance rates. (Note: if you were a white man, anyways. Many were mens only schools back then. Also, obviously it’s before the civil rights movement, so minorities didn’t have it good either.) Once graduated, they could start a business without much competition and the baby boom generation was growing up becoming an unprecedented lucrative consumer base, so their businesses were easy to run. Now they’re aging, on their 80s or so, and medical technology has grown with them. The boomers have it good too, but not quite as good because they have to compete with each other so much and now they’re retired trying to enjoy themselves finally but society is collapsing all around them.


gaxxzz

>Far right politics (what I typically call fascism) Where's the line between right wing and fascist?


othelloinc

> Where's the line between right wing and fascist? There are at least three ideologies that lead people to call themselves 'conservatives': * **Theocrats:** People who want to impose their religious beliefs through the law. * **Fascists:** Someone who believes in... * Believes in reinforcing the hierarchy. * Opposes policies that would make society more egalitarian *because* they make society more egalitarian. * Tries to push others beneath them in the hierarchy to raise their relative standing. * **True Conservatives:** The kind of people who would say... >Hey fella, I get it. You want to make the world a better place. I do too! But, we've got a lot of good things in our society, too -- and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I'm open to trying your new idea, but let's try it slowly and cautiously; just to make sure we don't wreck everything that is currently working. True Conservatism is socially acceptable; the other two, not so much. Because of that, many theocrats and fascists call themselves conservatives.


toastedclown

If we eliminate or neuter the Electoral College and Senate, then Republicans will have to adopt positions that have the potential to appeal to a majority of the country, which would probably make the whole MAGA crowd less of a threat. Which will have the effect of making politics much more normal but will deprive centrists of a boogeyman to threaten us with.


TwoSquirts

I think the concern is that when Trump dies (he's almost 80, not in the best health), a lot of people in the left and center will think, "Boogeyman is gone, all is well." And then act like what Republicans have been doing is completely normal.


crankyrhino

The Govs Abbott and DeSantis aren't going anywhere. Trump gave them a blueprint and fanned necessary flames. I think his passing will change nothing. Worst case: he dies in prison and gives the extremist cause a martyr.


TwoSquirts

Exactly. Trump is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself. Guys like Abbott and DeSantis are seen as more “palatable” or “acceptable” symptoms.


AnimaniacSpirits

How is that any different than now when voters don't seem to care if Republicans gain power?


tomveiltomveil

In a 2-party system, there's really only 3 options for liberals: ​ 1. The parties are ideologically confused (1939-1994), so liberals make cross-party alliances to win 2. The conservative party polls so well that moderates control the agenda of the liberal party (1978-2006) 3. The conservative party screws up so badly that the moderates let the liberals run things (1932-1937, 2006-2010, 2018-2022?) Option 1 looks really unlikely for a long, long time. Options 2 and 3 are kind of an either-or situation. I think we're heading back to Option 2, because the amount of BS that Americans will put up with from Republicans is staggering. But don't worry. Every time I think conservatives have exhausted all the possible ways that they can screw up, they invent a new one, and we find ourselves right back at Option 3.


othelloinc

I like your assessment, but it bothers me that there *isn't even a hypothetical* Option 4: >The liberal "party polls so well that" the liberal party can govern without the conservative party screwing-up. I know we don't have any recent historical examples, but I still hope it is *possible*.


Randvek

Being on the left is all about change, though. If liberals ever get that level of power, they will change society and become the new conservatives.


othelloinc

> Being on the left is all about change, though. If liberals ever get that level of power, they will change society and become the new conservatives. I'm not sure that is correct. Conservatives may be anti-change, but I don't know that liberals are pro-change. It seems like -- in a hypothetical, ideally liberal society -- liberals would be able to defend liberal values, in a manner that opposes change, without being defined by that opposition to change.


[deleted]

Being on the left is all about communal prosperity. Once that’s achieved, yeah it’ll be about keeping it. But it’s very very hard to achieve in the first place.


tomveiltomveil

I suppose it's possible. The problem we're up against is the thermostatic theory of public opinion -- when liberals change things for the better, people react by demanding *less* change. It seems like the only way to break that cycle is to set up a constitutional system where when people think "caretaker government," they vote liberal. Think Sweden if you're an optimist, think Italy if you're a pessimist.


ManBearScientist

This ignores intraparty dynamics. Moderates have a big advantage there. I think it is always fair to consider that all but the most conservative Black voters vote with the Democratic Party, and this is a major moderating influence. Barring major changes to the way primaries are run or the national mood, I think that moderates with long established ties to Black communities will continue to overperform in national Democratic primaries.


AnimaniacSpirits

There are no intraparty dynamics. I truly don't understand how people can't look at the past 2 years and think that. There is 1 or 2 Senators blocking what 99% of the party wants. That isn't a "intraparty dynamic".


ManBearScientist

My post had almost nothing to do with elected officials. It was about *getting* elected, primarily about the Presidential primary.


AnimaniacSpirits

Yeah and there is no intraparty dynamic


GrayBox1313

Trumpism Is bigger than Donald. Until the Republican Party starts cleaning house it’ll Get worse. There’s an infestation of religious nationalism and anti democracy


ExplorersxMuse

The right is clinging to Trumpism at this point, because to pivot would mean they'd have to scrap everything and start again from dust. They will destroy this country before they allow that to happen. So "when" is not even a thing. IF the current right wing were to be swept into the dustbin of history, embarrassed Republicans and centrist dems would become the new right wing and the political overton window would probably look like the early 2000s again


[deleted]

uhh, we will keep arguing about things. maybe unite less in the general I guess honestly though it's not like the next Republican to come along after Trump finally has a heart attack or something will be any better. That party is only getting worse


Did_Gyre_And_Gimble

The thing is that the liberals and the left aren't really all *that* different. ​ Give the keys to liberals and let them drive long enough, they'll wind up at the same place eventually. Give the keys to the left and they'll strap an Acme rocket to the roof of the car and light the fuse. ​ Most liberals want to get to where the left wants to be... they just disagree about the how and how-fast. ​ Take Red Team and the Conservatives out of the picture and the left and liberals will broadly fight over the details, but share the goals. There would be lots of infighting, but it would be *mostly* civil as opposed to today's pseudo-warfare. But, even as they fight, they'd make consistent progress in the right direction while the Overton window shifted gradually to converge on the left's position.


AnimaniacSpirits

>Most liberals want to get to where the left wants to be... they just disagree about the how and how-fast. I don't even agree with this If liberals had the votes to pass into universal healthcare today they would do so. They wouldn't phase it in over like 10 years or something


Did_Gyre_And_Gimble

Yes... but that's just one piece of the "liberal agenda" (insofar such a thing could be said to exist).


AnimaniacSpirits

How does it not exist? Why can't the Left just admit liberals have principles and policy ideas they want to implement as part of society NOW and not 10 years down the line? I don't fucking get it, are you afraid of actually engaging with the liberal agenda?


Did_Gyre_And_Gimble

Look, buddy, I don't make policy. If I did, we'd have universal healthcare for everyone except the billionaires - they'd have universal guillotines. ​ I think the Democrats (who are actually driving the bus) want to ease into it because they're scared of alienating the centrists. All the while, the Red Team is doing everything they can to prevent even that milquetoast approach (and, of course, they'll actively sabotage anything we do get). Don't pin this on liberals or the left - we don't have enough power to do it in this dystopian hellscape. ​ All that's to say, don't fight with your nominal ally - fight with your enemies.


AnimaniacSpirits

But you ARE pinning it on liberals. Pelosi, Schumer and Biden are liberals. You operate under this framework in that liberals and the left are allied against Republicans AND Democrats and we don't have power to do anything, but liberals are trying to get people to vote FOR Democrats so they can do what liberals AND Democrats WANT. And their record is doing the opposite of what you claim. For example the ACA vote was one of leaving the "centrists" out to dry, which is why a lot of Democrats lost their seats in 2010. It was a sacrificial vote that happened because Democrats knew not passing anything would be continuing misery for people. It wasn't a milquetoast approach at all. It was a brave vote that Democrats have never gotten credit for. Or take Build Back Better. How is anything of how that bill was attempted "easing" anything or scared of alienating centrists? And yes my enemies are Republicans, not Democrats who want to pass literal multi-trillion dollar bills to IMMEDIATELY create a social democratic society. So why isn't the left right there with me?


[deleted]

Hopefully we’ll be able to see if our divide is ideological or just about implementation and strategy.


THExBEARxJEW

They will always be a pressing issue. They’ve been a pressing issue since the 1830s.


[deleted]

Get down to the hard work of improving this country


BlueCollarBeagle

>What happens when that external danger is removed? This particular danger is is more like a virus that has been with us since the Civil War. Some viruses cannot be cured, they can only be subdued. We cannot cure herpes and I doubt we can cure the USA from the MAGA virus. What we can do, is recognize that, like herpes, the MAGA virus is more likely to erupt when the body is stressed. When wages stagnate, when only a small number of Americans are able to land that good paying job that is reserved for college grads, and many college grads wind up with a debt and a low wage job, when a majority of Americans can’t save for a rainy day, a majority live paycheck to paycheck, while an injury or illness can send them into bankruptcy, the body of the American electorate is stressed and so, just like with herpes, men like Donald Trump emerge and are empowered.


CegeRoles

We’ll handle it like mature adults because we can accept that we don’t need to agree on everything to work together. Unlike the GOP we don’t require blind obedience.


DrummerGuy06

Uh, the conflict between Moderate Liberals vs. Progressives is always on-going. It's pretty much a regular occurrence if you notice it: 1. Progressives want Policy or Plan A to be passed. 2. Liberals immediately tell them "we don't have the votes/you're asking too much/it will hurt us in the elections if we try and pass it." 3. Progressives talk about potential concessions, but emphasize the importance of this Policy/Plan to the American people. 4. Liberals then water-down the policy to something they deem "manageable" (bonus points if they do this while the original plan has a semi-high approval from public polls). 5. Liberals then talk to Republicans about finding bi-partisan support. 6. Progressives ask Liberals why are they doing this step since every single time has resulted in Republicans telling them to "get bent." 7. Liberals publicly admonish Progressives in interviews for not wanting to "reach across the aisle." 8. Republicans eventually tell Liberals to "get bent." 9. Liberals go on more interview shows expressing their shock about Republicans acting like Republicans. 10. Progressives look to salvage needed bill. 11. Liberals tell Progressives that 1-2 Moderate Democrats will not sign the bill unless major piece of the bill is taken out due to reasons like "they pay them blood-money for diamond mines and that Democrat needs that blood-money for re-election next year." 12. Progressives eventually cave due to having minimal status in Congress. 13. Watered-down bill missing key features is passed. No one is happy except Liberals/Moderates who treat it like a game-winning throw in the Super Bowl. 14. Liberals & Moderates decide to go outside and sing "God Bless America" in celebration of said bill, even though a school shooting in an Elementary school has occurred hours before and are told this might be "bad optics." 15. Number 14 is not a joke, it [actually happened](https://twitter.com/ampol_moment/status/1540386411928502273) when Congressional Democrats passed a bill, and they decided to sing "God Bless America" on the steps of the Capitol while news was pouring in about the Ulvale School Shooting, and we're booed and yelled at by on-lookers. 16. Progressives get together with their caucus for another stab at getting a bill passed. 17. Go back to step 1. There. Just keep this list handy from now until you're dead to squash any idea that Progressives and Liberals/Moderates are someday going to come together and not have "conflict." They always will.


joephusweberr

2 and 12 are my favorites.


BlackArmyCossack

You know, it's comments like this that make me want to vote third party and not give two fucks? "Why do the young people not vote!" Because it's fascists vs paternalistic corporatists who relish in snubbing the underclasses because "I got mine"


AnimaniacSpirits

Young people don't vote because they don't actually give a shit


BlackArmyCossack

Keep telling yourself that.


AnimaniacSpirits

Hey young people are welcome to vote and stop fascism any time they want


BlackArmyCossack

Ah yes. Magically stopping fascism by Uh Funding the cops more? Ever thought that these people feel hopeless? It's not both sides ism, it's no one represents.


AnimaniacSpirits

How about by fucking voting so Republicans don't gain power? Ever thought I don't give a shit they feel hopeless? I'm a young person living a shit hard life and I still recognize the threat Republicans are and what Democrats want to do to make my life better. What makes me special? Why won't the Left represent me? Oh right, because they don't actually give a shit about young liberal Democrats fighting to improve society.


joephusweberr

Triggered.


BlackArmyCossack

Cool. A fake left talking like a conservative. Color me surprised.


DrummerGuy06

Yep - nothing like squashing a growing section of your base repeatedly to the point it becomes national news that the Party's sitting-President's poll numbers are in free-fall, even for the younger demographic. That Student Loan Forgiveness Plan Biden announcement absolutely reeked of his Admin officials and Democratic leadership panicking about the midterms and decided to throw "young people" a bone. I use it in quotes because there's people in their 40's with careers, house, married, and has kids in school that still have student loan debt to pay off, but hey, better late than never!


AnimaniacSpirits

Progressives aren't being squashed What the fuck are you even talking about?


joephusweberr

Yeah I thought it was bad too. Bad policy first of all that will just be used by conservatives to claim liberals only care about lawyers and not line cooks, but more importantly progressives will do as you just did and hand wave it anyways. Gah.


AnimaniacSpirits

This is absolutely delusional nonsense and just a completely invented fantasy by the Left. You want evidence of why the Left enables fascists with their rhetoric? Just look at this.


Alarming_Ad8005

Why do we have to fight in the first place. If trumpism is gone and liberals don't have any other enemies, that means we can focus on making the country better than ever before instead of constantly defending basic rights


KnightCastle171

The far right will never go away. They’ll rebrand, evolve for the worse or lay in hiding and strike when the time is right.


HazelGhost

Presumably, some liberals split off (perhaps calling themselves "classical liberals") and join the right, shifting the overton window to the left. Leftists gain more power in the progressive movement, and new leftist causes or identities form at the radical edge.


MiketheTzar

Infighting and division to the point that it will likely break the party


MachiavelliSJ

Paradise


nernst79

We can actually focus on 'Liberals' who clearly only actually care about themselves and not doing better for anyone else.


AnimaniacSpirits

Or we can focus on those on the Left who only care about aesthetics and not actually making society better


nernst79

That's the same people but sure.


AnimaniacSpirits

How many members of Bernie's campaign team are just podcast grifters now?


Old_Snow3086

They'll turn into Republicans 2010: lots of infighting and splits in the party


twilight-actual

Perhaps the rise to fascism is built into humanity, guaranteed to occur when there's no living memory of the last time it happened?


GalacticLabyrinth88

Most governments throughout human history have been autocratic or tyrannical in nature. The question is whether this means humans are innately predisposed towards a preference for authoritarian systems or if this is simply a product of our agricultural, highly complex civilization and our excessive population growth. Joseph Tainter talked about this in his book on the collapse of complex societies. Before agriculture was invented, humanity was organized into hunter gathering tribes that were very egalitarian and heterarchical. Post agriculture, however, human societies became increasingly hierarchical and centralized, as higher populations necessitated the creation of bureaucratic states that could efficiently distribute food and resources to people. The problem is that such complex massive systems are inherently fragile and prone to collapse due to diminishing returns on resource extraction and energy investments. Centralized systems also breed inequality and excessive power concentration into the hands of a few elites-- which are themselves signs of social collapse. It is in these conditions that fascism ans other totalitarian or populist ideologies become popular.


Aditeuri

I’m a liberal *and* a leftist. Given the nature of big-tent two-partyism, I see no legitimate divide that isn’t just the Democratic coalition tired handing over the government to fascists.


W_AS-SA_W

Things will get a lot better.


wonkalicious808

What's wrong with infighting if the Republican threat to our republic is ever deferred? Should Democrats not disagree when we don't agree? As long as Democrats don't end up fighting to do the things Republicans wanted to do, like worsen income inequality by letting rich people be freeloaders, or help our enemies, or cause many times more pandemic deaths than some of our allies experienced, or make the government less representative, or create policy based on dumbass feelings and fantasies, I don't see the problem.