The great constitutionalists, from Aristotle to Montesquieu to Madison, believed that the populace should have a voice, but they also thought, with Cicero, that the well-being of the people was the highest law. Survival and flourishing is most important, not pandering to popular passions.
Any small “r” republican knows that a good society divides up power among authorities, repositories, and mysteries, such that all are checked and balanced; neither the bounder nor the mobile vulgus can become tyrannical. Pluralist theory seeks both safety and stability in multiplicity. The wisdom of crowds—and brokering institutions.
I thought this was a good read but a flawed conclusion from a flawed premise.
I greatly disagree with the author’s characterization of the VRA.
And his victim mentality that conservatives have been discriminated by the federal government since the 80s the same way that blacks were discriminated against in the south is pathetic.
That being said I agree that the growing entrenchment is a problem, that tit-for-tat gerrymandering is a problem, and there is not an easy solution when we cast our political enemies as world-ending fascists that we must defeat in elections. No one wants to weaken the advantages they’ve given their side when they delude themselves that winning the election is life or death.
I wish the article’s author would have presented a solution rather than just summarizing the problem. Maybe he did, and I just missed it. Until we de-escalate the rhetoric surrounding “the other side” I don’t know if there is a solution.
I think this misses the mark of our current situation.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nazis-mingle-openly-cpac-spreading-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-fin-rcna140335
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/jack-posobiec-jan-6-2024-cpac-rcna140225
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nbc-news/
“If there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, then you got a table with 11 Nazis.”
It is a justified characterization of conservatives as fascists.
Why would we seek to de-escalate the rhetoric surrounding “the other side” when the other side is openly embracing and defending neo nazis?
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/gop-popular-front-white-nationalism/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-nation/
"“We are a religious state and we are going to fight it to keep that filth [the lgbtq+] out of the state of Oklahoma because we are a Christian state – we are a moral state,”
How much of this can they do before you’re OK with labeling them as fascists?
I think it is currently a HUGE problem that the current conservative political machine is courting neo-nazis and white supremacists. The fact that Jack Posobiec spoke at CPAC is a travesty and shows how unserious the current GOP has become. I have no problem calling these people fascists. Thats exactly what they are.
I still don’t believe that is representative of even the whole or even just the majority of conservatives. I think it’s valid to call out the “normal conservatives” for siding with the extremists because they have to in order to have a shot to win elections. I think thats the problem that the article author Identified but got wrong when he whined that Democrats are empowering election fraud by supporting the Voting Rights Act and not taking the draconian measures like some red states have. They’ve deluded themselves that the ends justify the means.
Maybe it shouldn’t be our responsibility to listen, but that just entrenches the existing divisions. If we want the 10 conservatives to stop sitting at the table with the 1 Nazi, (and I do) you have to let them have a seat at the serious table. If the only person that will talk to them is the 1 Nazi, they are gonna be 11 Nazis pretty soon.
I don’t like the path we are on with current political polarization of every aspect of American life. Like the other article from Discourse that was posted said, I think we get along fine when we don’t talk about politics. I want to be able to have disagreements and still get along because when we interact we moderate ourselves and each other. I want conservatives to have a voice because the tit-for-tat politics we have now lead to these big pendulum swings where we empower once fringe voices such as Donald Trump.
Then you have 10 nazi sympathizers sitting at the serious table. Seems like a real bad idea to me. It’s probably better to know who is a nazi, which ie easier when they are out in the open so you can throw them in jail.
This portrayal of the political divide being simple opinions isn’t accurate. It’s not a simple difference of opinion when one side is ok with, or actively trying for your extermination.
I think legitimate political opinions (not nazi/nazi sympathetic) should be allowed to have a voice. But a blanket acceptance of all opinions is how we get to the current situation with neo nazis gaining power and influence.
There are conservatives that think that non-heteronormative people shouldn’t exist and shouldn’t have rights. You’re right that isn’t a matter of opinion, those people shouldn’t have power.
But you (impersonal you, not you specifically) give those conservatives that power. If we don’t allow discourse with conservatives in good faith for things that a just differences in opinion such as gun control measures shouldn’t infringe their right to own a gun, health care reform should be incremental and gradual and not separate them from their preferred private practitioner, or that private industry might be better stewards of certain services than public government, without calling them fascist/nazi/whatever, then expect those conservatives to have discourse with someone who will.
And I won’t put this blame entirely on the left wing, the internet has made it easier than ever for conservatives (and progressives, to a lesser extent) to pick the “junk food” option of listening to only voices that validate their beliefs instead of challenging them. And alt-right and neo nazi movements have capitalized on the populist zeitgeist to capture “junk food” conservatives
I am being idealistic for sure, but i think its equally nihilistic to think all conservatives are OK with or are actively trying for extermination of non-white non-cis people. I think we will have to disagree and thats ok.
I don’t think that’s something that we (general we) are failing to do. Conservatives aren’t getting called fascists for their opinions on gun control or privatization. They get called fascists for taking away peoples rights, for their open calls to end democracy, for their defense of neo nazis, etc.
Not all Germans who voted for Hitler were actively trying for the extermination of jews. It’s not an issue of what they are actively trying for or want (at least for a large chunk of them).
This issue is that they are ok with supporting politicians who are actively trying for or want extermination.
That is the hard part, most liberals don’t want to have a conversation, they want to scream fascist/nazi or whatever.
I would say both sides are just as guilty. Twitter, Reddit, Lemmy are all know for extreme left views.