Why political forgiveness and cooperation won't be coming any time soon

Politics & Elections
142

…with all due respect, why? Why would you think that?

That was the original post that probably sparked this tangent. I’m still in the “how the fuck would I know” stage. I do know that the Democrats (and Americans that oppose MAGA) can’t take the foot off the gas. And that they have to fight and continue to fight and win everywhere they can. But the specifics of each fight is out of my hands. This is a chaotic and fluid situation. Yes: people will care more about what happened in 2021-2022 than they will about promises made for 2023-2024. Which is why the Dems have to fight like hell right now to change that.

Do you understand the difference to how you are viewing it and how I am? You are viewing it through a normalized lens. This is all normal. And if the Republicans get back in again in 2022 they will have power for a bit and then the Dems will win the next election and everything is going to be fine.

I don’t see it that way at all. I think you dodged a big bullet with Trump. But they aren’t going to make the same mistakes again. They are going to double down with everything. More Qanon candidates. More bullshit voter suppression. More bad faith. More lies and propaganda. The Trump years will be nothing compared to what is coming if you don’t put a stop to it now. And the people that will suffer are the people in the margins. Black and indigenous communities. Transgender folk. Immigrants. Muslims.

You haven’t seen how bad it can get yet.

Biden is going to get the Obama treatment because the Republicans no longer give a fuck about even the pretense of normality any more.

143

‘America is screwed cuz Republicans’ is more of a rant than a discussion.

No, I get that. And then it’s all bad, game over, man!

~Max

144

I would say America’s political system is a mess with things like bribing politicians counting as “speech”, the electoral college and the media landscape inevitably leading to chaos.
But it’s been mostly the Republicans (and mostly right wing media) who have really taken advantage of these structural problems.

When I think about it, I think a trump figure was inevitable, but with politics as usual would have taken 15-20 more years to appear, we just skipped a few steps in this universe. Bear in mind the next nominee after Trump was Cruz, not Jeb.

So something really has to give. It’s not about Dems beating Republicans. It’s about whether the US decline can be reversed or we just give up.

145

…just a reminder that this was the case that you made:

Do you remember writing that list of, what did you call it again… inherently bad faith procedures?

It isn’t a rant to argue that a party that one should do everything that you can to make sure a party that embraces those tactics do not hold power. You did the work for me in the thread to demonstrate that Republicans are the problem.

You’ve accepted that the Democrats can argue in good faith. If the Democrats can do that, then why have the Republicans shown to be incapable of doing that at least in the last four years? And watching the impeachment trials what makes you think that anything is going to change?

146

This is a perfect example of the abusive nature of the Republican Party.

Yes, Stacy Abrams refused to concede. She acknowledged that her opponent was certified as the winner and would take office but she claimed there were serious irregularities ( which there was evidence of ). But she did not make this claim loudly or repeatedly, nor did she try to prevent the winner of the race from taking office.

She did work, through legal channels, to fix the problems with the state voting system. It seems to have worked, and the recent election results add a little credence to her initial claims. This is what is known as a basically appropriate response. Maybe not perfect, maybe she could’ve been a little more gracious, a little quieter.

Donald Trump refused to concede. He claimed, loudly and repeatedly that the election had been stolen. He and his staff solicited false claims of voter fraud. They filed 60 frivolous lawsuits, claiming publicly that the alleged fraud, while knowing full well that they said no such thing, then attacked the judges as corrupt when they rejected his claims. He engaged in multiple pressure and extortion campaigns in order to try and stop the certification of legal votes. When all that failed, he amassed an army to attack Congress and assassinate his vice-President.

So, both sides, right…they both refused to concede.

Here’s the thing, dude

Sometimes the battered wife really did do a crappy job of folding the towels. Pointing out that the victim - did something less than perfect - is the keystone of the abuser defense. If I were you, I’d be concerned that I was getting so good at making these arguments. Be careful not to let this kind of thinking slip into your personal life, please.

The key is proportionality . The fact that someone on the other said once said she didn’t think the election she lost was fair doesn’t give you license to conduct a 2 month pressure campaign culminating in a literal insurrection.

You can decide you always hit back 10 times harder, but if that’s your doctrine your an abuser and it’s a morally incorrect position, ie WRONG.

147

Fuck bipartisanship with this current GOP. Nuke the filibuster and pass a strong voting rights act. Let’s make the next 2-4 years a war of ideas and public policy. The majority of the electorate needs and wants progress, not Republican recalcitrance.

148

Thanks, @Ann_Hedonia! I saw this response when I logged in this morning and was going to answer, but you said everything I wanted to and a bunch more.

149

Which is exactly why the would have to go nuclear if the Republicans are obstructionists. If the Republicans prevent them from getting things done, and as you say, and I agree, that they will not be able to pin it on the Republicans, even when it is their fault, then that’s what they need to do.

That’s what fighting like hell looks like.

And what if Republicans simply refuse to support, no matter what?

Except that no one organized a raid on the Georgia State Capitol.

150

To chime in with what other people said, the fact that Kemp actually did steal the election is a very important detail. A true accusation of someone stealing an election is obviously justified, and justifies refusal to concede, fighting in the courts and raising awareness about what happened. A accusation of someone stealing an election with no evidence is obviously not justified, and does not justify refusal to concede, or trafficking in conspiracy theories, much less inciting a riot.

151

Yep, this.

I think one consequence of the insurrection is that the chance of Dems actually getting 50 votes to abolish the filibuster is no longer zero. I’m still not totally optimistic, but I think even the moderates are starting to get it through their heads that the Democrats need to hang together, or else hang separately, possibly literally.

National voting by mail, end partisan gerrymandering, DC/PR statehood. Do that and the GOP as currently constituted will never win another national election.

152

This is not your argument, is it? Democrats “should do everything [they] can to make sure [Republicans] do not hold power”, but also “The Democrats should not use bad faith tactics” and “Republicans aren’t going to come to the table”. Unless “everything you can” means “nothing”, you contradict yourself.

I wouldn’t bet on Republicans coming around to legislate in good faith.

~Max

153

Yes, that’s why I brought it up. :confused:

~Max

154

Maybe. But for certain types of wrong things, wrong things that aren’t pragmatically wrong but needlessly abusive, I believe that you have a duty as a decent person to stand up and push back and call it out, even if it is futile and even if there is a cost to you.

Being morally neutral, failing to call out an abusive wrong, is amoral.

You’re right, it isn’t always politically expedient. It would’ve been very easy for networks like CNN and news outlets like the NYT and WaPo to go easy on Trump, to not call out every abusive act. They knew it made them looked biased. But you can’t start minimizing abusive behavior even if it is politically expedient.

Which is what I think you are suggesting…maybe?..

But I don’t think minimization is politically advantageous. Because normalizing the disproportionate responses just means you’re going to end up normalizing something even worse next time.

As someone who was ethical to a fault professionally, I can tell you it has its advantages. Because when everyone knows you’ll never do anything shady, they never ask you. So you don’t get yourself in those situations where you lose a client because you won’t give them dummy invoices for the IRS …because you once offered to help them dodge sales tax, or fake a field damage report.

And this is why I think the Republicans have a problem the Democrats don’t. And it’s not just Trump and Trumpism. Their political campaigns are primarily tools for money-laundering and self-enrichment, and only secondarily about getting a candidate elected. They won’t hold their leaders accountable, and they elect leaders that take advantage of not being held accountable.

I think they are in danger of losing the business wing of their party, several large corporations have suspended donations to politicians involved in Stop The Steal. The Chamber of Commerce, formerly a Republican stronghold, was active in a behind the scenes alliance to protect democracy from Trump, and has been very bipartisan lately, supporting many Biden initiatives. While businesses like low taxes and deregulation, they also like stability and predictability. A political party whose stated policy on everything is “whatever Trump wants today” is not business friendly. Neither is insurrection.

So still feel good about where the Democratic Party is, I feel they’re about to reap the long term benefits of morality. But even if I didn’t, becoming a little bit craven to make Republicans feel better about being extremely craven is not on the menu.

155

Absolutely correct. It’s not about truth or unifying the country or trying to bring peace. It’s about rhetorical points. “You are being devisive in persecuting Trump.”

Yes, the outcome of the Civil War is a lesson. We can’t let them off the hook, absolve them of all wrong doing because that will just feed the anger. We have to hold them accountable for their actions, pass judgment on the illegality, and get them to see where the lines are drawn for acceptable political protest.

What would “literal religious devotion” to Trump look like? Believing his lies? Defending his worst actions? Continuing to blame Obama and Hillary for all the country’s woes? Desperately decrying the mainstream media as “liberal fake news” while listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Infowars as “the truth”? Marching on the Capitol and breaking in to hunt down the congressmembers to “Stop the Steal”?

Democrats to capitulate that Trump did nothing wrong, that the Republicans’ actions are all perfectly acceptable, that the narrative that the Dems are just playing power politics is true.

Dominion’s libel suits against Fox et al is a good start.

Return of White, Christian privilege. Subjugation of non-whites to their rightful second class status. Ejection of all Mexican immigrants. Making gays go back in the closet. Etc.

I fear you are correct.

156

I know the comment seems hyperbolic but consider what China has done the last 10-20 years alone, cordoning off the internet, using smartphone tech to basically monitor its citizens everywhere, using a mixture of light touch and heavy-handedness to control communication among social groups, developing a social credit system, and literally destroying cultures in ways similar to how Europeans destroyed native cultures a few hundred years ago. Governments everywhere would love to have that kind of power, and China would love to weaken pro-democracy regimes that stand in their way of global marketplace and political domination.

157

…I’m sorry, but are we not allowed to have multiple arguments? Is that a rule here I’m not aware of?

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

If you are choosing to interpret “everything they can” to mean “every single possible behavior under the sun” then you’ve gotten things wrong. I don’t think the Democrats should launch a campaign of mass murder to ensure the Republicans don’t get back into power. I don’t think they should sell illegal drugs to finance their campaigns. I don’t think the Democrats should start targeted assassination’s. Or burn down court buildings. Or negotiate in bad faith.

Does that clear things up for you?

So why do you advocate reaching out to them then? If they want to be part of the process then they can do the reaching out.

158

It isn’t hyperbolic because China’s ascent, due in large part to the West’s desire to placate labor at home and virtue signal while outsourcing and transferring manufacturing and manufacturing know how because consumers demand one thing while voting another, is further proof that classical liberalism is not inevitable. We were fortunate during WWII and the cold war that certain American industrial strengths such as mass production were able to overwhelm the axis and the communists with military goods and consumer goods. Well, we forgot that lesson.

Worse, we no longer have a common morality or even sense of history or culture in the West. China, on the other hand, is unapologetically nationalist. I don’t see them making the ideological mistakes of the communists that led the Soviet Union. China has proven to be very adaptable. I’d take Taiwan in 2030 or so if I were China. We in the US are moving to the point where it’s obvious we wouldn’t fight to protect the other 1/2 of the US we sure aren’t going to have the stomach to fight China in 10 years.

159

Labor rights were strengthened considerably both before WWII and in the decades that followed. Labor rights are strong in Eurozone economies, so I don’t see that as the problem. You could argue that transferring our technological and industrial capabilities to China has helped China close a gap and resulted in a blow to the working class, but that by itself isn’t problematic.

The US will likely live to regret its trend toward unilateralism and its domestic economic policies that drive wealth inequality, the latter of which has been a transformative political variable both domestically and globally. US leadership, particularly under Republican misrule, has far more in common with illiberal and oligarchal “democracies” than it does Western democracies like our traditional post-WWII allies.

160

Interesting perspective…

161

Yes they were. But post WWII there was no real competition. What we can afford to do when we have the most developed infrastructure in the world and other countries are bombed out or pre industrialized is much different than what we can afford to do when our competitors share our advantages. Wealth inequality is also not intrinsically bad outside of how it fuels the politics of class resentment and racial resentment when there are disparities. What is bad is transferring productivity and moving to a so-called post industrial economy without the realization that in a heterogenous population not everyone is suited for post industrial work.

The biggest problem, however, is the self loathing that has infested the west. The Chinese don’t suffer that mental infection and they will be not just industrially and militarily formidable but formidable in the ability to exploit the social weakness and division of the west. I’m not sure how a civilization embarrassed by it’s success and it’s history can compete with a civilization that is proud of who they are.