Let me ask a hard question, a really hard question: What if a plurality of American voters were hard-core neo-Nazis? Not just “conservative”, not just “bigoted” or “prejudiced”, but actual “kill the Jew rats” Nazis? Who’d line the streets cheering and throwing confetti as the police rounded up victims to be led off to the camps and gas chambers?
The thing is, the whole theoretical basis of our democracy is to be representative of the will of the People; what if the People are Nazis? As designed, the federal constitution could be amended to enact anything if a 3/4 majority backs it; including calling for the enslavement or extermination of the 1/4 minority. In practical realpolitik terms, a large enough supermajority will have what it wants because what could oppose it? What do you do if the Israelites vote to worship the Golden Calf?
The question then becomes “if democracy led us to this pass, should democracy be abolished?” And what sort of rule of the saints or enlightened philosopher-kings do you substitute in its place?
The abolishment of segregation and de facto second-class citizenship for African-Americans was a long-overdue correction of a grievous injustice; yet I fear that the progressive Left took away from this a toxic lesson: that the way to achieve their goals is to ram progress down the troglodytes’ throats, and if they don’t like it, too bad. This is inherently anti-democratic; you can insist that you’re morally in the right and that those who oppose you are wrong, but it ends up telling those who oppose your position that not only are they wrong but that their voice should be silenced.
The political resurgence that backs Trump is based on the 40-45% of the population who feel like they’ve been told “shut up bigot, it’s time for the saints to come marching in”. Only the 40-45% have enduring doubts as to just how kind and fair and righteous the progressives actually are. If you tell people “you’re evil, so until you admit how wrong you are, what you think and say is to be canceled”, then how do you expect they’ll take that?
ETA: Some people wonder how anyone can support Trump’s wrecking-ball approach to managing the federal government, but that’s actually an example of what I’m talking about: the dispossessed minority have become so nihilistic that they actually would rather see the federal government collapse than let the status quo continue.
And all that sounds like a re-hash of the situation from over a century ago and continuing today - reframing events as political disagreement between supposed progressives and supposed conservatives, while the class struggle that is actually happening affects the vast overwhelming majority of “both sides” equally.
The US was and apparently still is very good at re-coding such class inequality as “actually” based in religion or race or whatever. It’s not about a fundamentally inequitable system, no, it’s “them” (we all know who wink, wink ) mooching off the system. That’s why we have high prices for beef, eggs, milk, gas, whatever. Not failed supply side economics and a lack of a social safety net. Nope, it’s us vs them (and again, we all know who we’re talking about wink,wink).
Exactly. This isn’t a good thing, but it is reality. I think what kept it from getting to this point in the past is that different bigots had different targets for their hatred. What Trump did was unite all the haters under one umbrella, regardless of who it is that they hate.
Which is more or less what Hitler and the Nazis actually did. They successfully sold the idea that communism was simply the logical end-game of liberalism and could therefore paint themselves as the ideological opposition to a sort of grand coalition of decadent liberalism that was responsible for everything wrong in Germany in the early 1930s.
I have to work on how direct I am when typing this stuff out. I thought it was obvious that that’s (mostly) a joke… I figured the “or something" made it clear.
This. If anyone with even half a brain looks at the chaos currently unfolding in Washington, the collection of malevolently evil and comically incompetent misfits, it’s like a black comedy that in saner times nobody would ever have believed possible.
Anyone who voted for Trump (and Vance is arguably worse because he’s not so ineffably stupid) and approves of this utter shit-show is beyond reach of any logic or reason, or if they look at the utter shit-show and now regret voting for Trump, then it’s a moot point.
I can. You know why I’m not a Trump supporter? Because I take in all the information I can, from all different media and can objectively see he’s a bad person. Willful ignorance, by refusing to look at all the facts and only listening to what Fox spins at you, is inexcusable. At that point one is choosing to be evil, and not out of ignorance.
There are people who are just dumb. They can’t help it. One of the low IQ guys McNamara recruited into the army thought a nickel was worth more than a dime because it was larger. He could vote. Some people are not malicious, but dangerously stupid.
In this particular case, it is already a precedent and one used in living memory.
Literacy tests to disenfranchise ‘undesirables’ were used into the 1960s, though nominally used to make sure voters could understand their ballots. They are not considered unconstitutional in theory, though, in practice, they were clearly rife with abuse. They were effectively disallowed by ‘60s civil rights legislation (and one of the things apparently “crammed” down the throats of bigots).
Not sure if joking, in case you’re not; I worry that I.Q. tests are bullshit when considering a person’s overall intelligence, and any voting restrictions are slippery slopes.
Maybe, but that does not apply to millions and millions of Trump supporters. They are either willfully ignorant or are choosing an evil position purposely.
Not a sure thing. Bobby Fisher, for example, had a reported IQ of 187. He was known to be a virulent anti-Semite, racist, and a Holocaust denier.
The following is an AI summary:
Key Aspects of Fischer’s Views:
Anti-Semitism: Despite having Jewish ancestry on his mother’s side, Fischer expressed intense hatred for Jewish people, calling them “thieving, lying bastards” and accusing them of trying to take over the world.
Holocaust Denial: He frequently denied the Holocaust and expressed admiration for Nazi ideology, even keeping Nazi propaganda.
9/11 Rhetoric: Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Fischer did a radio broadcast in the Philippines where he praised the attacks, saying “This is all wonderful news” and wishing for the United States to be “wiped out”.
So high IQ might not necessarily mean ‘has good intentions or thoughts’, but might be a step in the right direction. However, as carnivorousplant points out…
Per the discussion in ATMB, we’re trying to be more clear and consistent in identifying AI content (which is in the rules). Thus when quoting from an AI source please try to specify the AI used and bold it, and place all AI generated text in a quote box as I’ve done to @Lucas_Jackson’s quote. This is a new standard we’re trying, but not a formal rule at this time, so of course no warning or serious concern. But it is absolutely a “best practices” model to embrace.
A ex-friend who turned out to be a fascist-friendly was extremely bright, with a high I.Q. He knew, and practiced making music, was very technically savvy, and understood computer code to a certain extent…