And I don’t just mean Democratic politicians. Americans, including Democratic supporters, will die because the Quisling Caucus of the Democratic Party caved. There’s no One Neat Trick that would stop Republicans, but a key problem is the invective gap: professional Democrats will not call Republican politicians horrible people, even when it is deserved. Far too few Democrats were saying things like “Republicans, because they are immoral people, are willing to starve millions of Americans so they can be allowed to deny healthcare to millions more. That is an abomination.”
Because that is not hyperbole. That is an accurate description of the Republican Party. They are willing to starve people to immiserate others. This doesn’t mean Democrats are AWESUM! and you don’t have to believe they are to comprehend the monstrosity of the Republican Party.
Instead, having paid millions of dollars to shitty consultants, there was lots of talk about defending the ACA (“FROM WHOM MOTHERFUCKER?” cries the angry goose meme). There are still too many professional Democrats who still speak of Republicans as colleagues, as honorable opponents (even as the majority of supposedly honorable Republicans in both houses of Congress voted to prevent the impeachment of the man who incited a mob that would have killed Democrats–that doesn’t seem collegial). Honorable, decent people do not use starvation as a political tool. People who do so shouldn’t be ones’ colleagues.
Few professional Democrats, even at this late hour, either understand or believe that the Republicans are a fascist formation (if you don’t like the descriptor fascism, feel free to use sparkling authoritarianism or some other phrase). The term matters because the worst thing about fascists is the fascism, but the next worst thing is what one has to do to stop them:
…the larger problem is that the Democratic leadership, such as it is, still hasn’t internalized that the Republican Party is fascist. That does matter, as once you accept your opponents are fascists, you realize that there will be costs to be paid to stop them. There already have been people hurt, in one way or another, by this regime, and there will be more no matter what we do, until the regime is stopped. And the act of stopping them is going to result in American Carnage, one way or another. Hopefully, it will be less carnage than more and those responsible for it will bear the greatest cost, but it could get very bad–and far worse than a few months of healthcare subsidies (as murderous as that will be).
The only Democrat who seems to understand this is Sen. Chris Murphy; even many of my faves aren’t willing to say that there will be American Carnage (to use a phrase) even when we win. Given the price that will be paid, the least professional Democrats could have done is call Republicans by their right names.
Republicans used starvation to achieve policy ends, but I’m not sure many Americans see it that way. The invective gap is killing us.
mikethemadbiologist
If you think calling R’s names will solve the problem, I’ll remind you that people who argue with ad hominems have lost the argument before they begin–never mind that all politicians are unnecessary-conflict-averse.
Even more to the point: Obama didn’t prosecute the massive war crime that motivated lots of voters to elect him and a D congress: Iraq. He also foamed the runway for Wall Street after they executed what’s perhaps the largest theft in human history–the subprime/derivatives meltdown, now called the “Global Financial Crisis.”
I’ve been sent videos decrying Trump’s corruption in pardons and clemencies. Here’s one that cost victims of fraud, and the courts, roughly $2 billion: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Cb3VA2ikQRI
But Obama’s fecklessness meant the Fed extended $16 – $29 trillion in credit to Wall St. (for only $9 trillion we could have paid off everyone’s mortgage).
Just a reminder: a trillion is 1,000 times a billion. So who’s the bigger crook?
Obama avoided the necessity of pardons and clemencies by never prosecuting the thieves in the first place!
And Trump voters aren’t stupid, they’re angry (not that anger leads to the most sensible thinking). There’s no more effective way to divide and rule the US population than by dividing them into righteous D’s and condemnable R’s. Or insulting D’s and angry R’s. As Boss Tweed used to say “I don’t care who people vote for as long as I can pick the candidates.”
“If you think calling R’s names will solve the problem, I’ll remind you that people who argue with ad hominems have lost the argument before they begin” — But do they lose elections?
Do you think allowing Wall Street crooks to get away with theft is worse than unleashing masked goons with guns in American cities? Goons who have been promised they will never face consequences for anything they do?
Actually, not all, but many Trump voters are demonstrably stupid. They cheered wildly when Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. They believed the idiotic statements regarding day one ending of wars and price reductions. They believed that somehow January 6 was not a Trump production, and so on, almost infinitely. Many voters were mad, but they all didn’t vote for Trump, as you imply. Those that did not vote for him responded to their anger thoughtfully. Those that did vote for him, reacted emotionally. Therein lies the difference.