There is no hard definition of either one, so I’m not sure one can be mistaken.
My definition of moderate Republican dates from the 1970’s at least. Harris would fit into the Republican party at that point. They were for building infrastructure, a functioning bureaucracy, aggressive foreign policy, and were surprisingly interested in increasing the social safety net, within an overall concern for fiscal prudence. At the time I thought they were entirely loathsome, but nothing like time to give perspective.
My definition of liberal also dates from then. George McGovern, for example, was a classic liberal. Harris is a distance to the right of McGovern.
I don’t define socialism, since one can point to Sweden or to North Korea and call them socialist. Which means the term has about as much meaning as ‘freedom’.
Fascism is clear though, and getting clearer all the time.
I’d appreciate if you read what I wrote, and respond to it, and not presume I am using some idiosyncratic, non-standard, or antiquated definition of “Democrat.”
I also never even mentioned socialism, so I don’t know who you think you’re responding to there.
So, again, what is your issue with what I actually wrote: if you don’t want the US to continue along a path to fascism, vote progressive in the primaries, and Democrat in the general election?
Now that I have pointed out the faulty assumption in your OP (that we can only avert fascism through policies that uniquely favor white men without college degrees, which “liberals” as you call them would supposedly balk at), it should be relatively clear that one party (and one particular wing of that party especially), wherever it might fall on a broader political spectrum apart from our contemporary US two-party system, is much more likely to enact the sort of policies that would improve the lives of people without college degrees of all stripes than the other.
Then your definition dates from when both parties had ideological wings.
Blue dog Democrats, “boll weevils” and Dixiecrats.
Progressive Republicans, the Reagan coalition, and the liberal Rockefeller Republicans.
Racism and sexism are parts of human nature. They’re not the only parts; but it isn’t fatuous to say that behavior that’s been part of so many human societies is human nature.
Fighting them is also human nature. We are an odd species, possibly on our way to becoming a different one; if we survive long enough.
Responding to the apparent authority of what seems to be the toughest male is part of human, and primate, nature. In humans I call this the “king reflex.” I haven’t got it. Terry Pratchett apparently didn’t have it. A lot of people don’t have it. But a lot of people do; and denying this, when so many human societies have indeed gone in for kings and so many human groups obey a “strong leader” even to the major detriment of many members of the group including obedient ones, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Fascism isn’t monarchy. But it combines that Authority of the Big Man with relying on keeping power by keeping as many people as possible afraid of the Out-Group. And it is part of human nature to be afraid of the Other – just as it’s also part of human nature to be attracted to the Other, and to want to learn from, make friends with, make mates of the Others. Both of those impulses are part of us. Some individuals have more of one, some more of the other; but they’re certainly both part of the species. Nothing fatuous at all about saying so.
Capitalist and communist societies are both liable to being taken over by totalitarians. In the relatively short chunk of history since those systems were invented, communism seems to be the more liable. But neither of them is immune; and neither of them is a guarantee of protection.
The parties were in the process of switching places at that stage, and both included quite a large range. They’ve diverged considerably since.
The lineup of particular positions has also changed around a good deal.
I have no argument with you. Of course vote that way! I didn’t start the topic to talk about how to vote, that is a given. I was interested in possible policies and programs that might damp enthusiasm for fascism. Haven’t heard any here, and now, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to. Just the same old arguments. Sorry I began the topic.
You want me to point to specific progressive policies that would improve things for low-income households, including white men without a college degree?
Okay: universal healthcare, universal basic income, and government subsidized low-income housing initiatives, all funded by (1) more of the same progressive income tax and (2) a wealth tax.
Saying that white men’s average income had fallen relative to everyone else’s is the same as saying everyone else’s average income has been rising to the point where it’s approaching the white male average.
That’s not a problem. There’s no reason why white men should have higher incomes than women or non-whites. Thinking that white men are inherently supposed to be better off as part of some natural order is, at its roots, racism.
So we shouldn’t be doing anything to push white men back up above everyone else.
Well, more accurately the way to deal with white men turning to Fascism because they’re angry about losing relative status is to re-educate them that their better status was both a historical accident and a crime against nature.
Not necessarily their individual fault that it was that way, but totally their individual fault if they can’t accept that the unique 30 years post WWII when our blue collar parents got rich was an one-time anomaly that cannot, and should not, be repeated.
You want to do well in the 21st century, you gotta bust ass in the brains department, not the brawn department. And everyone is your competition, not just the other white men while all the non-white or non-male people were already preselected to be losers.
We mustn’t judge too harshly. This is their first time accepting their actual value to society. Have you never felt a sudden rush of panic? Yeah, that’s the systemic racism we talked about. It takes experience to master it.
No she wants policies that will help only white men without a college degree. I don’t know why, but she apparently thinks they must earn more than someone like me who worked hard to get my college degrees, or else they are justified in burning the place down.
I guess they just deserve it more.
Once again the only strategy we get from people like her is pandering.
This is not true, but I find that the willful misunderstanding of both the people involved and myself is so overpowering that I am bowing out. There is no arguing with closed minds.
I would probably also be impossible to enact over the violent objections of the people who would have to pay for all that.
I feel like there is this misconception that it’s just poor uneducated white men who have fascist leanings. I feel like the leftist narrative that all problems will be solved if we tax the rich to “help the dumb white racist poor people in spite of themselves” is dangerously naive and elitist.
It seems to me that people turn to fascism when they feel like they are being unfairly imposed upon by some outside force (or illegitimate internal force). They look for a strong leader who will set things right in their mind.
So it’s not just poor uneducated white men. It’s also middle and upper middle class men with good jobs or who own businesses who feel they are being imposed on by liberal woke regulations and high taxes on their hard-earned labor going to immigrants and unemployables.