this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
112 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10186 readers
698 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's never a binary on/off switch. Democracy dies through slow corrosion. If we let Trump off with all of those crimes he committed, and allow him to get re-elected, all of those crimes are now unenforceable.
Well, unenforceable for the rich and powerful. The poor has a different system of justice.
DeSantis, Haley, and all of the Speaker nonsense has been infighting with old-guard rich assholes who want to break government more subtlety than how Trump and the rest of the Tea Party idiots do things. The GOP has been trying to steer out of this Trump trainwreck ever since it's started, and they don't have the control over their own populace than they used to. But, that's not a good thing because everything that the GOP represents has been going even further extremist.
But, do you know what happens when these candidates drop out? They immediately fall in line. They kiss Trump's ass so hard that no callous insult he made at him is unforgivable. Hell, Trump accused Ted Cruz's father of helping in the JFK assassination, and Ted was like, "Yeah, we should totally vote for this guy!"
There are a lot of ways to define what qualifies as Democracy: is it the mere presence of voting? Is it the impact of that voting? Is it equal/ universal voting rights? Is it the ability to enforce voting outcomes? Or the ability for voters to choose what is voted on?
Some of those are clear binaries, and some of those are gradations or thresholds.
Personally, I think it has to be a combination of universal voting rights, voter-led ballot control(i.e. choosing what to vote about), and enforceability.
To me, we've been failing as a democracy for a long time.
The unenforceability of those laws is not determined by his reelection, they're determined by the actual court cases charging him with crimes. We do not have the ability to force SCOTUS to allow him to be held accountable, and comforting ourselves that we actually can, merely by not re-electing him, means you already realize the laws are not going to be enforced against him in the "Justice" System.
Which is exactly what every Democrat challenger does as well.
No, if someone is claiming that democracy is being killed, it's very important to define what that actually means. If Democracy is the simple act of some any given sub-group being allowed to vote, it's never going to 'die' in the US. If on the other hand it's the actual ability for individuals to overrule those in power via voting, then it's arguably already dead. Definitions are important.
I agree with Stewart on that point:
Trump is not going to end voting if he gets reelected, and voter suppression and disenfranchisement by Republicans existed long before Trump and will continue long after Trump. There is nothing that Trump is going to fundamentally change about our government.
It will be very bad if he gets elected, but the country is not over, and using hyperbolic language that implies otherwise, like "This is a question of whether democracy dies in America." (which is what the commenter I initially responded to said), is just being used to deflect from very important and valid criticism of the alternatives. More importantly, it runs the danger of creating voter fatigue; not every election can be an exceptional, emergency situation, and all of Trump's runner-ups like DeSantis and Ramaswamy, are all running the same playbook.
If the only way for America and/or Democracy not to die is for Republicans to never again become president, it's already lost, because we're in a duopoly with them (which the DNC is actively working to maintain), and it is an eventuality.
You inserted yourself into a conversation I was having, in which the other person (P03 Locke) was disputing Stewart's assertion that the country would not be over, and asserting that
That is the context in which I felt it was necessary to define Democracy.
You then jumped in and said
despite the fact you had not actually said that previously, and that it is a different stance from what P03 Locke said.
P03 Locke never asserted Trump was eroding Democracy, they said he would be killing it, and they said that as a direct counter to Stewart's assertion that the country would not be over, which indicates that in P03 Locke's mind, the death of Democracy is equivalent to the end of America.
In that case, it's incredibly important to define Democracy, in order to understand exactly what changes P03 Locke believes Trump will make, so we can actually assess the likely impact of those changes, and see what precisely they think qualifies as the end of Democracy.
I didn't say you can't participate, but you jumped into a thread in which 2 people were discussing whether the country and democracy were going to come to an end, and then immediately said, "well I never said anything about the end of democracy/ the country". That's cool, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion that P03 Locke and I were having, which was explicitly about that.
I also note that you have no response to any of the actual points I made, so I'll assume you have nothing to add or dispute.
Lastly, I'd love to see which parts of my comment you consider "an entitled tantrum". Was it when I pointed out that you introduced an unrelated argument, and then acted as though I'd been arguing against it?
Actually, I think I'll just keep pointing out the flaws in your comments.