When a politician advocates for the people who elected said politician, this is how our political system works. Some folks would like to circumvent the system and declare politicians they don’t agree with as “ruthless authoritarian”. How do you think conservatives view AOC’s Green New Deal?
I thought governors and presidents were supposed to represent all the people who they represent, not just those who voted for them, but I guess that’s an antiquated notion.
Irrationally?
People aren’t describing Ron DesSantis as an authoritarian or fascist just because they disagree with him; they are doing so because he is taking authoritarian control in a very classical fascist manner. The idea that the “Green New Deal” is some kind of transparent mask for broad authoritarianism is absurd on the face even if you feel that several of its tenets reflect a propensity for federal overreach. This is not a “both sides are the same” comparison.
Stranger
I agree. Local politicians (municipal, county) advocate for local populations. Governors represent an entire state. Presidents represent an entire nation. The difficult part is representing those who didn’t vote for you.
Not to mention that it’s just a proposal that hasn’t ever been introduced for a vote, let alone become law. (Which hasn’t stopped Republicans from blaming it for blackouts and other sundry disasters.) As opposed to several of DeSantis’ policies which are actual laws hurting actual people as we speak.
Building on what @Miller said, many conservatives view the Green New Deal the same way many conservatives saw the New Deal: they thought things like minimum wage laws, laws against child labor, collective bargaining rights, social security, and banking regulations were “ruthless authoritarianism.”
Worse, these programs proved wildly popular with the public: when Americans saw the good uses our tax dollars could be put to, and the benefits of federal laws protecting workers, we fucking loved it. It’s the rare American today who wants to eliminate Social Security, put children back in the factories, or remove oversight from banks.
Government can do great things, and Americans know that.
Which is exactly why today’s conservatives are so opposed to the Green New Deal: they’re terrified that Americans will once again say, “Hey, these things are fucking amazing,” and will look back in horror on the days before we put these measures in place, much like today we look back in horror on the days before social security and anti-child-labor laws.
Well, not all Americans, but most of us.
It’s instructive how the left calls De Santis a fascist because he acts in the manner that fascists have acted historically, and the right calls AOC an authoritarian because she acts in the manner that wildly popular reformers have acted historically.
History is happening right now; we all get the chance to choose a side!
I couldn’t access this article. I still don’t get how DeSantis can be considered a fascist or an authoritarian, unless he advocates policies like changing the constitution and getting rid of the House and the Senate.
You should tell that to this guy:
Or… conservatives are worried that the Green New Deal will impose restrictions on society too quickly, without time to adjust to new technologies. What happens if requirements for electric vehicles outpaces capacity for electrical production?
Moderating:
This is a total hijack to this thread. Please take your discussion re AOC and the Green New Deal to a different or new thread. If you wish to carry on a comparison between what AOC advocates and what DeSantis advocates, then that could be a basis for a new thread. Thanks.
I don’t get what you mean by “tell that to this guy”.
OK. My bad. I apologize.
Hitler didn’t start out by trying to get the Nuremberg Laws passed, and DeSantis is just showing his slip to see how America likes attacking a powerless minority with hateful rhetoric and oppressive restrictions. It turns out a significant portion of the population likes it fine. This is how fascism grows; you piss on it and it grows into a full bloom.
Stranger
Now I’m confused: should we stop pissing on fascists?
What they meant appears to be that you said both:
…and…
“This guy” refers to you, as you made two contradictory statements. Do elected officials represent all people in their district/state/nation (as per the first quote), or only those who voted for them (as per the second quote)?
There is at least one of whom I’ve heard will actually pay for it…
Stranger
It seems to me that there are significant differences between current US politics and the Rise of Nazi Germany.
The Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, blamed Germany’s ruined economy on the harshness of the Versailles Treaty, on faults of democracy, and on the stab-in-the-back legend. In Germany, as in post-Austro-Hungarian Austria, citizens recalled the pre-war years under autocratic rule as prosperous but the post-war years under weak democratic rule as chaotic and economically disastrous.
I also see some similarities, unfortunately.
And the cards are on the table.
Proposed legislation in Florida targets journalists. Link (PDF) to the actual text.
In short, AIUI, the proposed law will make it easier to sue individual journalists for defamation. As a former journo myself, I’m fully aware that many (on both sides of the aisle) consider the profession full of hyenas. And to an extent, they are right, but I think it’s a matter for another thread.
This bill however doesn’t even pretend to be ‘fair and balanced.’ It’s not that long (11 pages) and it’s full of legalese that I don’t fully understand, as well as references to a bunch of other stuff. But in spite of that, there are some passage that are quite clear.
The purpose of HB991 seems to be to lower the bar for what a plaintiff need to prove defamation. With that in mind, here are some quotes:
[Page 5]:
Clarifying defamation standards.
(1) A fact finder shall infer actual malice for purposes
of a defamation action when:
(a) The defamatory allegation is fabricated by the
defendant, is the product of his or her imagination, or is based wholly on an unverified anonymous report;
(b) An allegation is so inherently implausible that only a reckless person would have put it into circulation; or
(c) There are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the defamatory allegation or the accuracy of an informant’s reports.
Aside: (b) ‘inherently implausible’? This is Florida, where ‘inherently implausible’ is a permanent resident./s
[Page 6]:
There are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of a report when:
[snipped]
(2) An allegation that the plaintiff has discriminated against another person or group because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity constitutes defamation per se.
(a) A defendant cannot prove the truth of an allegation of discrimination with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity by citing a plaintiff’s constitutionally protected religious expression or beliefs.
(b) A defendant cannot prove the truth of an allegation of discrimination with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity by citing a plaintiff’s scientific beliefs.
[Page 7]:
Presumption regarding anonymous sources .
(1) A statement by an anonymous source is presumptively false for purposes of a defamation action.
(2) In a case where a defendant in a defamation action refuses to identify the source of a defamatory statement, the plaintiff need only prove that the defendant acted negligently in making the defamatory statement.
[Page 7]:
A public figure does not need to show actual malice to prevail in a defamation cause of action when the allegation does not relate to the reason for his or her public status.
@Charlie_Tan quoted from the proposed bill HB991:
Presumption regarding anonymous sources .
(1) A statement by an anonymous source is presumptively false for purposes of a defamation action.
(2) In a case where a defendant in a defamation action refuses to identify the source of a defamatory statement, the plaintiff need only prove that the defendant acted negligently in making the defamatory statement.
I don’t really understand this. Does this mean that journalists don’t have to identify their sources?