About that "end of democracy" talk

It’s not just the “soccer moms”, although it’s a good placeholder for a segment of voters.

The police can be very good - in my current town we had a group of police talk down someone waving a knife around promising violence without anyone getting hurt not that long ago, and by and large community and police relations are good. But the police can also be extremely bad and that does need to be addressed. I think there are many instances were handing things off to social workers, mental health professionals, and others would work better, and I think a lot of the cops, who didn’t get into their line of work to be social workers or the like, would also prefer it. There are other people who just like having power over others.

I think it’s a complicated problem and a simple catchphrase doesn’t really capture the nuances, and I don’t think there’s a single easy answer, either.

Agreed.

It’s more how they define “secure”.

For some of us “secure” means every legal vote counted and every legal voter able to vote with all parties accepting the outcome.

For other people “secure” means “we win every time”.

That is not consistent with either of the two dictionaries I own.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Yeah, I’m not really willing to let them go redefining terms in such a self-serving manner, even if that’s what they really mean. What they want isn’t to secure an election, they want to fix one. They’re just not honest enough to admit it.

And if it did happen exactly once, the problem is a lot smaller than Republicans are claiming.

Suspension of 1 week for D_Anconia: Your asking for citation and dismissing a range of them as some were twitter is absolutely identical to trolling. A very common trolling technique in fact. This right after the modnote for calling other posters “Dopes”. You’ve been pushing the edge of being a jerk for a long time. It is not be tolerated. When you return be less of a jerk please.


In case it needs to be added. Also consider this a thread ban. Do not return to this thread.

Hmm, maybe Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), but uh, he is still a Republican policy-wise. I think he’s against renewing the preclearance provision of the voting rights act. Still a politician, too.

~Max

They came just five Rudys short of a coup last year.

Imagine where the nation would be now, had “a Rudy” replaced Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who refused Trump’s order to “find” enough votes to turn his defeat in the state into a victory, wrote Rotner.

The election could have been overturned with extra Rudys in key positions in Michigan and Pennsylvania — or with a Vice President Rudy, who would simply refuse to certify the electoral votes for the people’s choice, Joe Biden, Rotner emphasized.

“Trump didn’t fail to overturn the 2020 election because our brilliantly engineered system of constitutional government held fast … He simply didn’t have the right people in the right positions to pull it off,” Rotner noted.

He won’t make the same mistake if he lands in the Oval Office again, Rotner warned. Imagine where the nation would be now, had “a Rudy” replaced Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who refused Trump’s order to “find” enough votes to turn his defeat in the state into a victory, wrote Rotner.

The election could have been overturned with extra Rudys in key positions in Michigan and Pennsylvania — or with a Vice President Rudy, who would simply refuse to certify the electoral votes for the people’s choice, Joe Biden, Rotner emphasized.

He won’t make the same mistake if he lands in the Oval Office again, Rotner warned.

A Canadian political scientist warns that we may have a right wing dictatorship by 2030, if not sooner.

Trump could return to the White House and serve as “the wrecking ball that demolishes democracy” to produce “a political and social shambles,” Homer-Dixon wrote. That would set the stage “for a more managerially competent ruler” to “bring order to the chaos he’s created,” he added.

I take these warnings seriously. There are perhaps 25% of Americans who would be just fine with a dictatorship as long as they get to pick the dictator. Those 25% will already vote for DJT no matter what. To beat him, the Democrats need to get 2/3 of the sane 75% of the population. That’s by no means given. Once again in power, there would be a purge like never before seen and everyone in every government agency and in the military chain of command would be replaced by True Believers. Then we’ll get a premanent “temporary” martial law and no more elections.

My thought is, the only people still using that phrase are right wing agitators. It was used by a few people during the early days of the protests against police brutality, where people literally felt as though they and their neighborhoods would be safer without having an armed force of tyrants terrorizing them.

Plenty of other phrases are used, plenty of other ideas have been proposed, but this is the one that the right just won’t let go of, and demand that it is defended at every chance they get.

The reason that the right keeps repeating this phrase over and over is not because it is relevant to anything that anyone of substance on the left says or believes, it is because by repeating it over and over again, they are able to scare the pants off the suburban soccer moms.

What’s the most ridiculous part is whenever anyone on the left buys into this right wing propaganda.

Right, as you say, some.

A small portion is in fact, some.

I’m not sure why you are arguing with the very definition that you yourself gave.

But once again, if you want to criticize someone, either go out on the streets and criticize the people that used it briefly in the face of overwhelming bullying and intimidation by the police, or talk to the right wing propagandists who keep repeating it because they know that it’ll scare the soccer moms.

So, when you say that the criticism rightly belongs with the people who decided to use that word, who, exactly, are you wanting to criticize?

You missed the point of the second phrase. Taking away from A does not necessarily mean giving to B.

And I was referring to a couple of posts where the criticism was laid at the people who were “taken in*” by the defund part. To my knowledge, the phrase was coined by advocates. I’m saying that they deserve the blame, at least in part, for the misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of what the idea is all about.

I say this as a supporter of defund the police. We had a kid locally whose parents called the police because the kid was suicidal. The police shot him. He had locked himself in a room with a gun. That would have been better handled by mental health professionals.

But dumb marketing is dumb marketing, even if the product is good.

*my phrase, not the posters

No, but we are now getting into policy wonk territory, and far outside of slogan territory.

Few slogans ever get through the whole of the changes to policy they are advocating. In fact, pretty much none do. So, to complain that this one doesn’t seems just a bit ridiculous, IMHO.

Not really. It was pretty much grass roots by people on the ground who were personally fed up with the police acting as agents of terror in their neighborhoods. To a large extent, they didn’t want any police, they felt that they would be better off without them.

They had been promised reforms over and over, and those promises never materialized into actual changes in the way that they were treated at the hands of law enforcement. When the police started with their “Take it or Leave it” attitude, some people stood up and said, fine, we’ll leave it.

Now, do I think that they’d be better off with no police? Probably not. But do they have a valid point, a reason to think that they would? I imagine so.

It was no think tank or advocacy group who came up with the phrase, it was people who were at the end of their rope, desperate for some sort of change in the misery that was their daily lives. It was people who cried out in anguish and desperation for help in removing the agents of oppression who abuse them daily.

Those are the people that you want to criticize.

The phrase is no longer being marketed by anyone on the left, only by propagandists on the right. And as much as people seem to be buying it, they are doing excellent with their marketing.

The slogan is exactly what I was criticizing, not the policy.

And as I said, I’m very sympathetic to these people. But I still think it’s a dumb slogan. And I think I can criticize the slogan while agreeing with their premise(s).

In a democracy the marketing is required, not optional.

Defunding or eliminating the police has always been a ridiculous idea. Someone needs to enforce the laws and provide a measure of order and protection from crime. The officers I know spend a lot of time on social work type stuff as well as paperwork. There is not always someone else available to do the sort of things cops are routinely asked to do, 24/7, and it is a challenging job.

However, this does not mean that all the jobs police are asked to do are always best done by someone with general police training or who wears a badge. Spending funding wisely is not unreasonable. Prioritizing tasks best done by police seems appropriate. New Zealand has had success in recruiting officers by choosing the type of person who helps and sympathizes with people having difficulties and suggesting this type of person in their ads, but some tasks probably require authoritative types too. They should be appropriately and even extensively trained for whatever they do and have significant support and accountability. I think specialization and colleges are reasonable approaches.

The people who injured cops during January 6 deserve great condemnation for that. The police at their best greatly defend democracy.

Kentucky, by voter party registration, is 48% Democrat and 43% Republican, as of the 2020 election.

That doesn’t really refute my assertion. I’d venture that the majority of those registered democrats are in Louisville and Lexington. But that’s also only among registered voters. The state is deeply red. Any state that would consistently send Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul isn’t exactly a bastion of liberalism. Spend some time talking to your average Kentuckian. Trump is huge here. And the values he espouses are generally shared by the general populace.

Yes, but the police assure us that neither of those is their job. We need someone to do that, and we don’t have them now.

If the “deeply red” parts of the state aren’t registered to vote (and therefore can’t vote), does that matter? A state that sends very right wing people to Congress is one that certainly has pockets of red voters (at least historically), but if a majority of voters register as Democrat, it’s hard to insist that the state must be firmly red from a voting perspective, regardless of anecdotal evidence.

Granted, Trump got 62.1% of the vote in 2020 in Kentucky. It’s hard to square that with the registration information. Did people on the left just not vote? Biden didn’t even win overwhelmingly in the two counties he got, 59% in both. (Those are of course the counties that include Louisville and Lexington.)

If registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans, how is it so deeply red? Why do McConnell and Paul keep getting elected? Do a big chunk of those Dems simply not vote? Are thousands of Republicans actually registered as Democrats?

I’m genuinely confused.

Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering in the United States