• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    112 days ago

    TLDR I think personally I am still in the wait and defend myself camp. That seems to be a more useful strategy. It seems like labeling the Democrats as complicit goes against that. If the Democrats are complicit does that mean we would support them, Biden specifically, in a civil war? That’s not a rhetorical question by the way.

    Can someone or a political party for that matter be said to be complicit through incompetence? The Democrats are definitely incompetent. Their reaching for moderate Republicans strategy is a useless failure that isolated their progressives base.

    Biden, the Democratic consultants, and the Democrats in general seem more comparable to British PM Neville Chamberlain or German President Paul von Hindenburg than a Nazi collaborator like French civil servant Maurice Papon. Chamberlain and Hindenburg thought they could curb Hitler’s worst impulses and policies. They were wrong where as Papon actively helped Hitler.

    We can’t live in a house made of good intentions. But is it useful to raise incompetence to the level of collaborator(which If I’m not mistaken is what complicity implies)?

    At the risk of getting my ego involved, I’ll use myself as an example. I spent my time trying to get a Biden-Harris ticket and then a Harris-Walz ticket election win this cycle. My incompetence is different than the democrats, but it is incompetence none the less. Am I complicit in my own destruction since despite my best intentions and efforts the fascists took power? I did everything I knew how to do given the time and resources I had at my disposal.

    The Democratic consultants are payed to be incompetent, but I’m not convinced they realize that. Merrick Garland could have moved faster to take punitive action against Trump. Biden could have appointed someone else or when Garland dragged his feet kicked him out and got someone else. Mitch McConnell and senate Republicans seem to think they can curb Trump’s worst impulses and policies.

    Unlike myself, all of these elected politicians have power. Biden in particular has, in theory, sweeping immunity thanks to the Supreme Court. However, if Biden stopped the peaceful transfer of power and sent Trump to Guantanamo Bay there would be domestic terrorism at best and civil war at worst. Are we saying Biden, at this point, is complicit if he does not do this? Are we saying we would side with Biden in a civil war or in suppressing civil unrest?

    To put it bluntly if Biden stopping fascism through executive action is what morality demands of him are we going to be riding with Biden? Because without popular support Biden isn’t lasting long with such a move. These are the questions that come to mind when I see the statement the Democrats are complicit. To be clear, the statement in question is not that they should be shamed, Democrats should be shamed, but that they are complicit.

    So my non-rhetorical question is, is it useful rhetoric to say the Democrats are complicit in fascism? Are we prepared to argue that Biden should preemptively arrest this incoming administration? If that happened would you report strangers, neighbors, friends, family, and/or a spouse to the FBI if they said they were going to rebel against Biden?

    Biden is complicit in genocide. I was still willing to vote for him and told people to vote for him. There were people on lemmy who were not willing to vote for and/or argue for Biden’s second term. I’m sure many of those people will agree with your argument that the Democrats are complicit in fascism. I doubt those people would be willing to fight with Biden in a civil war. They seem to want to the US to burn to the ground along with the 340 million people who live here.

    I am an American and I would like to see my country and the people who live here survive. Whether we in theory took a proactive approach to stopping fascism or reactive approach to defending against fascism, it seems like a bad time. If Biden cracks down on MAGA and the rightwing infosphere it seems like everyone will turn on him. If Biden doesn’t and Trump takes power it seems like everyone will wish Biden had, but it will be too late.

    This turned into more of a rant than I meant too, but I think these questions are worth discussing in the time before January 20th, 2025. I see people relying on legal arguments, on youtube, to argue that Trump’s second term wont be that bad. I don’t want to name names because I respect those people and what they do is critical to counteracting the right-wing infosphere. But, again, they seem to be relying on the idea that the fascists wont be able to enact fascist policies because the law will stop them. Or at least limit the fascists. The law hasn’t stopped Trump and MAGA so far. And it seems like with each small step the law will limit the fascists less and less.

    People have already had to defend themselves against the fascists in the MAGA movement. More of us are likely going to be put in a similar position. It seems like we’re better off defending ourselves after Trump gives the order to send us to the camps. All the evidence from recent conflicts seems to show that the aggressor loses popular support quickly. However it seems like with this peaceful transfer of power next January we are about to test the limits of what popular support can do. Especially if Trump can drone strike the population into submission with immunity. But despite that, that risk seems unlikely, and thus waiting and defending ourselves is the more useful strategy.

    Saying the Democrats are complicit seems to argue against that strategy. Because there doesn’t seem to be anything else Biden or the Democrats could do at this point to stop Trump that doesn’t involve relying on Presidential immunity. Democrats in Congress would need Republicans to use Section 3 of Amendment 14 to block Trump and there doesn’t seem to be any chance of that happening.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      13
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      They’re complicit through willful ignorance. You can’t beat the drum of fascism, parade Project 2025 around and rightly point out that it’s a theofascist manifesto and blueprint, then run the campaign they ran. I wanted to vote for Kamala, and I had to pump myself up by the end. They took a gigantic wave of enthusiasm and pissed it away by playing it safe. That wasn’t Prosector Harris going against felon, rapist, fraud Trump. That was Biden’s shadow by the end, and they let Republicans tie her to Biden’s actions as president.

      They weren’t trying to win; they thought, “Surely, Americans have sense and won’t vote for that guy.” Credulous fools.

      To your other questions: would I be on Biden’s side in a civil war? Probably, yes. But I’m not hoping for a civil war or for Biden to do anything authoritarian—what I want is for him and the rest of the Democrats, not just the handful of firebrands, to collectively represent our pain. If they can’t say the quiet part out loud because of “decorum,” then they are failures as leaders.

      And that’s why they lost. Fuck decorum. They haven’t given anyone reason to hope in a long time. People voted for Biden, because they created their own hope by voting for not-Trump, but Biden himself didn’t give the average person reason to hope, a reason to be excited for the future of the country (despite actually doing some good domestically).

      Trump, on the other hand, gives his faithful reason to hope. He’ll (allegedly) crush their nebulous enemies and punish those they feel are deserving. He’ll restore some vague time when queer people “didn’t exist,” women didn’t work, and there were only two legal genders. Christianity will be used to indoctrinate children in public schools, and every busybody with spare time will get to decide what books we’re all allowed to read and which bathrooms we get to use. Like, he’s gonna make good on at least some of that, all while plundering taxpayer money before their very eyes, and they’ll let him, because he did the other things they wanted.

      So yeah. I don’t expect them to start a civil war, but they are complicit by regularly and frequently failing to treat the threat Trump poses seriously, and they are squandering yet another opportunity to build their base by mirroring the pain the rest of us are feeling.

      ETA: and I can only assume that’s because their privilege gives them the ability to not care that much.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 days ago

        what I want is for him and the rest of the Democrats, not just the handful of firebrands, to collectively represent our pain. If they can’t say the quiet part out loud because of “decorum,” then they are failures as leaders.

        Thank you for speaking to this. That hits the nail on the head. It speaks to the general callousness of the Democrats as they cling to norms.

        The way Harris told us to keep fighting, look over there at the stars, and then fucked off on vacation. And the way Biden was all to happy to meet with Trump like he was any other president elect.

        Maybe they think this is their way to prove Trump wrong, that our elections are free and fair. It’s like they care more about meeting the bar Trump sets for them than they care about the American people. Maybe it’s their privilege. I’m guessing they’ll be singing a different tune when Trump has them in court.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          61 day ago

          I’m guessing they’ll be singing a different tune when Trump has them in court.

          This is the part that honestly scares me. SCOTUS gave him broad immunity, and with the jackals he keeps in his orbit, I don’t doubt for a second he/they could contrive “creative” ways to punish anyone that speaks ill of him, resists his efforts, or otherwise tries to speak truth to power.

          What about the scientists and teachers just trying to do their jobs? What about the environmental activists? What about the charities trying to help Haitians or Mexicans or Queer people? What about the legal orgs fighting to keep Christianity out of public schools? They don’t have the money to fight the government, and all are potential targets if the right lobbyists convince him it would be more profitable if he were to make them “go away.”