I meant “pressed” in terms of your being called out on your original statement, just as you’ve spent this topic trying to call people out on their characterisation of Republican voters as actively supporting a white supremacist fascist (shorthand “neo-Nazi”) party.
You might want to consider that while you had to clarify your statement, no-one else has really felt compelled by the facts and evidence to clarify theirs on the subject of GOP voters.
And to be clear, no-one’s feelings were hurt by your patently absurd original statement in the same way you’re concerned about GOP voters taking offense to be characterised as supporting a fascist party.
I already know my views on bb are different than most of the other posters here — despite the fact that I’m probably more progressive in my thinking by most traditional accounts. I think you’ve seen enough of my posts on here over the years to know by now that if I agree with something I’ll tend to say so, and if I have a different point of view, I’ll share that as well. If it’s not in your interest to see my diverging viewpoints, there is a very easy to use set of tools available to prevent it — I used them myself just the other day, in fact.
I think you’ve seen enough of my posts to know that if any commenter’s “different point of view” is grounded in fantasy and BS I’m going to call them on it. You’re not unique or special here in that sense. The only people who make my very short Ignore list are those who consistently argue in bad faith.
I agree with you, and have all along. My argument has been and continues to be, not all of them know it, and right now, the focus needs to be getting the handful of percent who don’t quite grok it to grok it, and leave. I think that puts a bow on this topic — that is, unless anyone is interested in actually talking about what to DO about it.
And to respond to your latter point — I actually DO think there’s a significant difference, tactically, between telling someone “you’re supporting a fascist party if you don’t get out now, this is really the last chance for you to be on the right side of history,” and saying “you’re a neo-Nazi white power fascist!” I think it’s such a big difference, it actually does make a decisive difference in peeling these people off.
And it’s not about feelings, it’s about the utility of varying approaches, so the GOP can be kept out of power, period. I’d submit that my approach is the one that is more distanced from reacting emotionally to this very worrisome scenario.
With that goal in mind, it’s not counter-productive to hasten their departure by saying “dude, if you’re voting for a fascist, reactionary, white supremacist party you’re basically a neo-Nazi”. But you’ve spent this entire topic arguing that making that statement of fact will alienate them and hurt their fee-fees.
You started this debate by saying:
Now you’re saying:
So it’s not so tough after all. Which in turn makes it less tough to say to someone you think is capable of being peeled off (by facts and/or shame): “if you don’t want to be seen as a neo-Nazi, stop voting for what is effectively a neo-Nazi party”.
And there we have it — what you just said there is exactly the approach I am recommending.
I believe a full-scale media and on-the-ground effort needs to be made to put the facts of Republican malfeasance square in the faces of people, and telling them, “don’t be a freaking Nazi.” I think it’s OK to equate the Party and many (the majority) of its members with white power and fascism.
I don’t think the above will be effective if it’s done from the frame-of-reference of calling someone who’s considering bailing on the GOP a white power neo-Nazi fascist as step 1.
This entire conversation has been about whether it’s prudent and/or accurate to label ALL Republican voters as white-power neo-Nazi fascists. All along I have said that the Party itself and the vast majority of its elected officials, as well as voters, fall into that camp. Many posts were made stating that if the party is XYZ, that by necessity means every last voter in the party is XYZ as well, and reacting very “strongly” to me offering a diverging view that introduced a bit more nuance. A few people seem to have understood the distinction I’ve been making, and have engaged with me demonstrating that they comprehend it (not saying they necessarily agree with it).
It doesn’t sound like too many commenters on here are planning on being the types of bridge-builders I’ve been describing, so I suppose additional efforts to provide understanding to people who don’t really have a utility for it is, indeed, pointless.
The type of bridge building you are describing is asking people to realize they are being Nazis, and trying to talk them out of it. I support that in cases where it is possible. I don’t understand what pretending they aren’t being Nazis contributes to the effort. It seems like it would undermine the whole point, even.
But sure. If nobody here understands your point, the problem undoubtedly is everyone else. We are after all 98% far leftists, like you see in such extreme countries as Canada.
Good question. You were the one who said they should get the benefit of the doubt, but not for long. So, I asked how long? Presumably you had something in mind for once that period expires.
Well, I think accepting that an awful lot of them are enthusiastically advocating for civil war and the rest are ok with that would be a good idea.
On its own of course not. But I think trying to agree the nature and extent of the problem is step one.
I think as far as what one does, one thing is to get rid of the idea that labelling someone or a party as a nazis, or neonazis, or - my preference - white supremacist nationalists - means labelling them as beyond all possibilty of redemption.
Like it or not, there’s a lot of them and they have to be brought back into a democratic context somehow. I don’t think your idea of
is enough. It may keep the Q-wing out of power temporarily but it doesn’t deal with the problem. They just get more and more radical and fanatical and you have to deal with a worse problem later.
What you need is a fundamental recalibration of political discourse and education. That’s of course difficult, if not impossible given the current situation.
Unfortunately there isn’t really an existing roadmap to follow. The only previous times anything like this has been done is unfortunately after there’s been a big bust-up - such as the Second World War.
Denazification has been done. There is a model to follow but it relies on an overwhelming desire or compulsion to do it. It’s also not a complete or permanent solution as German history amply demonstrates.
So I don’t know what the answer is either but I think declining to call things by their right names out of a misplaced desire to avoid offense is not it.
Ah, you seem to have been following my thinking right up until this point.
I think much stronger messaging about the true nature of the GOP is absolutely critical to this effort. If anything, messaging should embrace the emotional gut-punch of associating the GOP writ large with “white power nationalism” which I agree is a much more useful label.
I’m OK with people feeling offended by their association with the GOP. I want them to feel worse about it. No question. I want to create an emotional argument that successfully peels that few percent off (I’m much more concerned about immediate utility than long-term solution-solving, at this point).
I don’t tend to think starting the above process by calling someone, directly, a neo-Nazi white power fascist, is going to be as effective as saying “this is where your party has gone, and you have a very limited window to choose your side of history.”
I appreciate your willingness to engage honestly and to take the time to articulate.
This whole argument reminds me of an IRL argument that I had last year with a more centrist Democrat. In our argument, the question was phrased: “Are Republicans evil?” I argued yes because any good that they may conceivably do in their lives is outweighed by the bad that they do when they vote for a party that actively promotes cruelty, racism, misogyny and the list goes on and on. My friend argued that we cannot call them evil without knowing their intent in how they vote and whether they do so with knowledge of what the party is doing. I argued that evil committed out of ignorance is still evil and so on, so forth.
I think that it might be helpful to get away from terms with so much complicated history as Nazi and as often misunderstood as fascist (and I mean that scholars on fascism cannot agree on a definition of fascism) and just go with the short and simple “evil.”
Also, @NickyG , nobody is suggesting that we confront Republicans by calling them fascists or evil. We are discussing what they are, not how to approach them. Those are two different things. We know that getting in their faces and calling them fascist or evil is not going to build bridges with people on the fence. Do not worry. We are not going to do that. I think that confronting Republicans about their beliefs is best done by pointing out the incongruence between what they claim to believe and what their party actually is and does. There is no need to call them fascist in the process, but not calling them that does not make them not fascist.
my concern when it comes to “peeling off” some of the fascist-adjacent is the need to appeal to them in some way. To do so instantly offends and turns away a huge number of the core supporters of the Dem platform. Let’s face it, Black women are the most effective community advocates for the community that made all the difference in a number of places (Georgia, anyone?) In Arizona it came down to Native Americans who voted in unprecedented numbers. To “peel off” those who approve of racist and misogynistic positions is to turn our backs on the very people who have just yanked us back from the cliff we were hanging from. We need to focus on getting our own folks activated and voting despite the efforts of the right to increase voter suppression. Shut them up in a small enough box that they can howl all they want and not be heard. Then I do not care. And yes, they are fascists. Does that make them Nazis? Semantics. If “fascist” offends them less, honestly, who cares?
Apologies, I dont have time to read this entire thread, but my short answer to the question is “a lot of Republicans dont realize they are neo-Nazis.” I thought January 6th would be like looking in the mirror on acid and finally seeing themselves. Maybe for some it was. But a lot of them just looked away and preferred to believe their own mental image of who they are instead of the reality looking them in the face. I’m talking about voters and politicians both. I wish there was a way to slap them in the face and wake them up.
I disagree that the focus should be on converting Republicans. While there may be some who are reachable, the number may not be as large as you think. Just anecdotally, I know plenty of people that squirm when pressed on T***p’s past and agenda, but voted for him anyway, precisely because they can’t bring themselves to say out loud what they really believe and feel. They couch it in terms of nationalism and economics, but it really does boil down to straight-up racism, bigotry, and the like.
A far better approach in my opinion is to stop slow-sliding to the right to appease these people and work on making sure the GOP’s ridiculous over-representation in political power doesn’t get worse, i.e. their voter suppression, gerrymandering, and have-it-both-ways moral lecturing.
On a see-saw, if the other side has less weight, but greater leverage, then sliding closer to them in the naive hope of bringing some of them to your side, will result in disaster.
Trump’s disapproval rating shifted 4 points upward immediately following Jan. 6th. Given the margin of many elections, that ain’t nothing. Heck, it might represent all who will peel at this point — I don’t know. I for one am OK with exploring the most expedient approaches to peeling off any more prior to 2022 possible. None of this requires “candy-coating” the messaging. If anything, I think it needs to be more harsh.
I think you’ve seen enough of my posts on here over the years to know by now that if I agree with something I’ll tend to say so, and if I have a different point of view, I’ll share that as well. If it’s not in your interest to see my diverging viewpoints, there is a very easy to use set of tools available to prevent it — I used them myself just the other day, in fact.
