Most people in general wouldn't mind living in a fascist state, with one giant caveat: as long as they're not the ones being persecuted. Most people would, all things equal, prefer everyone be...
One of the most surprising things to me about the rise of American fascism is how okay many Americans of voting age are with it. Not necessarily enthusiastic supporters, but, unbothered about living in an American flavoured version of the definition of a fascist state, or the most useful version I've come across.
Most people in general wouldn't mind living in a fascist state, with one giant caveat: as long as they're not the ones being persecuted. Most people would, all things equal, prefer everyone be treated with respect, but if it comes down to persecuting and scapegoating minorities and their own well being being impacted in any way, they'll choose the fascism every time.
That's part of the reason why fascism has any kind of success at all. If someone came in and said "we're going to put people in camps, and we'll all have to tighten our belts a bit to do it, but it's the right thing to do", no one in their right mind would ever vote them in. It would be a fringe movement by die hard lunatics that have devoted their entire core to hatred.
Facists don't do that though, they say "we'll put those people in camps and that will solve all of our problems. We'll get our jobs back, we'll be prosperous, you can have lots of kids and not worry about crime or anything!" And people believe them.
The human tendency to look out for you and your family's interests over compassion for strangers takes over, and even though fascists are blatant liars, and even if you're in the "in group", life overall sucks under fascism, by the time most people realize that it's too late.
It just takes the right combination of social conditions, and charismatic fascists, and any society is vulnerable to it.
That's why the effective counter message isn't "hey guys actually concentration camps are wrong. We cannot morally vote for these guys". Yeah, it's true, but that's not what people care about.
People care about their own well being, so the counter message should actually be "your life will suck under these policies. Take a look at our real, proven plan for how we can actually make this place better for you and your family, and take a look at all the times the fascists failed at that"
And people will doubt how bad things are when it doesn't apply to them, but even when it does. I've been reading On Tyranny this week and this snippet from a Jewish German newspaper from 2/2/1933...
And people will doubt how bad things are when it doesn't apply to them, but even when it does. I've been reading On Tyranny this week and this snippet from a Jewish German newspaper from 2/2/1933 stood out to me
We do not subscribe to the view that Mr. Hitler and his friends, now finally in possession of the power they have so long desired, will implement the proposals circulating in [Nazi newspapers]; they will not suddenly deprive German Jews of their constitutional rights, nor enclose them in ghettos, nor subject them to the jealous and murderous impulses of the mob. They cannot do this because a number of crucial factors hold powers in check…and they clearly do not want to go down that road. When one acts as a European power, the whole atmosphere tends towards ethical reflection upon one’s better self and away from revisiting one’s earlier oppositional posture.
Ah clearly they can't do that, even if they wanted to!
I do think the "no actually this is really bad" messaging works better on the same side of the aisle than across. I recall the dialogues about concentration camps not really being that, about how we're overreacting, about Palestine etc. and now people are more onside on those issues.
Good ol' gaslighting. Same shit, different day. I don't really know if there's a viable solution to this kind of menatlity. The only solace is its cowardice; You see the narrative and toxicity...
clearly they can't do that, even if they wanted to!
Good ol' gaslighting.
He's not REALLY going to do all these things
He's only going after the bad guy!
You must have Trump Derangement Syndrome!
Same shit, different day.
I don't really know if there's a viable solution to this kind of menatlity. The only solace is its cowardice; You see the narrative and toxicity really ramp up during Trump 1, then Biden comes in and a lot of that narrative flees to the dark corners of the internet, like cockroaches. Not as far back as it was in 2015, but a noticeable retreat. And then Trump 2 comes and it's back in full swing.
The mitigating factor is trust and empathy. But increasing wealth inequality makes that harder to do. And that's more of a preventative factor than a curative one. It's extremely hard to change mind in general, and it gets harder as people age.
I know Bernie talks about oligarchs a lot, but i think this was effectively his approach: And it has garnered so much support. I would love if stock standard democrats started moving that...
I know Bernie talks about oligarchs a lot, but i think this was effectively his approach:
they name a rigged system, call out the people rigging it, and promise to rebalance the economy in favor of those who work for a living.
And it has garnered so much support. I would love if stock standard democrats started moving that direction. There was another thread recently that highlighted that the majority of people in the US support some pretty "progressive" beliefs: medicare for all, reducing aid to Israel, subsidized pre-K. If we could get those and other platforms like anti-trust action (with my girl Lina Khan), create solutions to the housing crisis (via a whole consortium approach like construction, progressive property taxes, and regulatory overhaul) as positional issues I think we could have a shoe in candidate in 2028.
Could someone pass that info along to Hakeem Jefferies?
There was another thread recently that highlighted that the majority of people in the US support some pretty "progressive" beliefs: medicare for all, reducing aid to Israel, subsidized pre-K
Could someone pass that info along to Hakeem Jefferies?
Oh. So the messaging that "the unelectable left" has been screaming about since 2016 is popular and will probably work? What a twist! Gods. Can't believe it took a decade of galaxy-braining by...
Oh. So the messaging that "the unelectable left" has been screaming about since 2016 is popular and will probably work? What a twist!
Gods. Can't believe it took a decade of galaxy-braining by establishment Dems and things getting exponentially worse before it was figured out.
Ok, well I can....but that's because I know they really didn't want to admit it.
Am I completely misunderstanding what you're saying? To me the article suggests exactly the opposite: The results here conclude pretty strongly that the messaging that "the unelectable left" has...
Am I completely misunderstanding what you're saying? To me the article suggests exactly the opposite:
The results here conclude pretty strongly that the messaging that "the unelectable left" has been screaming about since 2016 is not popular and is not the right strategy:
Shouting at rich people is not the winningest strategy.
Shouting at corporations is not the winningest strategy.
Shouting at fascism is not the winningest strategy.
Shouting at plutocrats/oligarchs is not the winningest strategy.
Shouting at discrimination/class is not the winningest strategy.
Shouting at Trump is not the winningest strategy.
To be clear, this shouldn’t be understood as a plea for centrism or moderation. While it may seem like Democratic candidates are forced into a trade-off – either you opt to fire up the progressive base with ultra-liberal anti-Trump bromides or you aim to persuade Trump-voting working-class voters with a more conservative pitch – our results show that this is a false choice. The winning messages do neither; instead, they name a rigged system, call out the people rigging it, and promise to rebalance the economy in favor of those who work for a living. But they also avoid moral high-handedness and the preachy activist rhetoric that turns off many working-class, rural and swing voters. These are the lessons Democrats must internalize if they want to win back the working class, including some of the 59% of working-class white voters who, according to a March poll by Catalist, still plan to vote Republican in 2026.
The issue isn't progressive policy, but the way progressives talk about politics.
According to their polling, speaking to people's personal economy in a patriotic, positive way, getting working class folk their fair share in a way that is not overbearing, non-combative (and probably non-partisan) way seems to be the big deal.
Saying a large percentage of the country are brainwashed trumpists,, that others who don't share my opinions are irredeemable, that it's "us" against "them" and all the other main progressive messaging modes are not the winning plays.
Who could have guessed that we catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and people aren't in a mode to change their minds if they're being yelled at, antagonized or in other ways not being treated as thinking, sensible people?
From Bernie's initial announcement of his presidential campaign in 2016: That doesn't sound badgery to me. The badgery was the talking heads saying $15/hr minimum wage would tank the economy.
From Bernie's initial announcement of his presidential campaign in 2016:
Brothers and sisters, now is not the time for thinking small. Now is not the time for the same old same old establishment politics and stale inside-the-Beltway ideas. Now is the time for millions of working families to come together to revitalize American democracy, to end the collapse of our middle class, and to make certain that our children and grandchildren are able to enjoy a quality of life that brings them health, prosperity, security and joy, and that once again makes the United States the leader in the world in the fight for economic and social justice, for environmental sanity, and for a world of peace.
That doesn't sound badgery to me. The badgery was the talking heads saying $15/hr minimum wage would tank the economy.
I don't think it's worthwhile to have a long conversation about why an independent running as a Democrat, who was famously lauded by many progressives for not compromising, and whose whole...
I don't think it's worthwhile to have a long conversation about why an independent running as a Democrat, who was famously lauded by many progressives for not compromising, and whose whole presidential campaign and political career was mostly shouting about "The establishment" was not a constructive, winning strategy for the Democrats.
That's even before we get into how Sanders didn't pull out of the 2016 primary for weeks after Clinton had won it, before we get into his messaging.
Or getting into Sanders' 2020 primary and labelling a bunch of what should-be allies as "caving to establishment pressure". And his congressional record of opposing incremental changes that could win votes because of viewing the need for drastic changes as the only option, although that change was way outside political reality.
That's also all before the survey this comment section is about, and how shouting at rich people, corporations, oligarchs etc. is not the winning message now. It probably wasn't then either, and Sanders has been making those shouts for decades.
With the level of regulatory capture we have in the US today, and of 15 years ago, calling the people out who are actively working against your interests is important. I'm quoting the article...
they name a rigged system, call out the people rigging it, and promise to rebalance the economy in favor of those who work for a living.
With the level of regulatory capture we have in the US today, and of 15 years ago, calling the people out who are actively working against your interests is important. I'm quoting the article itself and it clearly lays "shout at X" as a part of the messaging.
I don't believe Bernie has ever said anything about us vs them. The othering and talk of "deplorables" or "garbage" has come from centrist, institutional democrats. The only us vs them in progressive politics is 1% vs 99%, and very few people fall under that banner.
When I have come across leftist threads on social media complaining about not gaining traction, I would classify the philosophy as what this group described as the "divide-and-conquer playbook". I...
When I have come across leftist threads on social media complaining about not gaining traction, I would classify the philosophy as what this group described as the "divide-and-conquer playbook".
I think the kitchen table option being promoted as feasible now would not have polled so well a couple of years ago. That was before tariff-driven inflation, before Iran-war-driven inflation, and many people who wanted to believe that Trump, as a strongman, could just tell issues to be fixed and life would get better (but not in his first term because Deep State) had no counterfactuals to contend with.
I don't have time to do it right now, but I would love to go back and look at what messaging polling like this has been like over the last 10-15 years. I suspect that part of the reason why this...
I don't have time to do it right now, but I would love to go back and look at what messaging polling like this has been like over the last 10-15 years. I suspect that part of the reason why this is now an acceptable default position is because of the persuasion from the more principled/progressive wing that have been steadily beating that drum for years.
That's why I've always been less of a believer in the popularism/message to the moment approach and more of a field of dreams/"if you build it, they will come" kinda guy.
This is true, but Trump was a populist running on an anti-corruption, anti-establishment,"they don't care about you" platform. Just the intelligent people knew it was a lie and knew it would beat...
This is true, but Trump was a populist running on an anti-corruption, anti-establishment,"they don't care about you" platform.
Just the intelligent people knew it was a lie and knew it would beat establishment politics.
The instant Trump polled more than 0% the Democrats should have been pivoting hard.
[comment redacted] I hope people take the time to learn about the conflict and to do the right thing, beyond My Team Their Team thinking . It's not just Jewish people either I think living...
[comment redacted]
I hope people take the time to learn about the conflict and to do the right thing, beyond My Team Their Team thinking . It's not just Jewish people either I think living comfortably far away a lot of folks are okay with the abstracted suffering of others.
This is useful data that I, as a neighbour to the North, hope gets adopted. But. Whether or not it will be a winning message, I have doubts. The states are deeply divided right now along a trust...
This is useful data that I, as a neighbour to the North, hope gets adopted. But. Whether or not it will be a winning message, I have doubts.
The states are deeply divided right now along a trust fault line that no message can get through. Even if the entire populace can agree on what the most important issue should be (no small feat by itself), it seems to be divided on who they trust to solve it. Trump can just as easy run on "gro-sireees (what are they even no one has ever heard of that word before)" and he did, and won.
It's not about saying the right things, when folks would rather vote for the guy who says all the wrong things but wave their colour flag.
This entire poll is about a deep desire by the Democrat side to have representation for a candidate who says these things. The Republican side says the same thing but they add in "we're willing to hurt other people so you can have more in this zero sum game" meanwhile the Democrats have no plan because they're also not interested in solving wealth inequality.
Most people in general wouldn't mind living in a fascist state, with one giant caveat: as long as they're not the ones being persecuted. Most people would, all things equal, prefer everyone be treated with respect, but if it comes down to persecuting and scapegoating minorities and their own well being being impacted in any way, they'll choose the fascism every time.
That's part of the reason why fascism has any kind of success at all. If someone came in and said "we're going to put people in camps, and we'll all have to tighten our belts a bit to do it, but it's the right thing to do", no one in their right mind would ever vote them in. It would be a fringe movement by die hard lunatics that have devoted their entire core to hatred.
Facists don't do that though, they say "we'll put those people in camps and that will solve all of our problems. We'll get our jobs back, we'll be prosperous, you can have lots of kids and not worry about crime or anything!" And people believe them.
The human tendency to look out for you and your family's interests over compassion for strangers takes over, and even though fascists are blatant liars, and even if you're in the "in group", life overall sucks under fascism, by the time most people realize that it's too late.
It just takes the right combination of social conditions, and charismatic fascists, and any society is vulnerable to it.
That's why the effective counter message isn't "hey guys actually concentration camps are wrong. We cannot morally vote for these guys". Yeah, it's true, but that's not what people care about.
People care about their own well being, so the counter message should actually be "your life will suck under these policies. Take a look at our real, proven plan for how we can actually make this place better for you and your family, and take a look at all the times the fascists failed at that"
And people will doubt how bad things are when it doesn't apply to them, but even when it does. I've been reading On Tyranny this week and this snippet from a Jewish German newspaper from 2/2/1933 stood out to me
Ah clearly they can't do that, even if they wanted to!
I do think the "no actually this is really bad" messaging works better on the same side of the aisle than across. I recall the dialogues about concentration camps not really being that, about how we're overreacting, about Palestine etc. and now people are more onside on those issues.
Yeah, it's why I've been frustrated with fence sitters and soft defenders of the status quo for a while.
Good ol' gaslighting.
Same shit, different day.
I don't really know if there's a viable solution to this kind of menatlity. The only solace is its cowardice; You see the narrative and toxicity really ramp up during Trump 1, then Biden comes in and a lot of that narrative flees to the dark corners of the internet, like cockroaches. Not as far back as it was in 2015, but a noticeable retreat. And then Trump 2 comes and it's back in full swing.
The mitigating factor is trust and empathy. But increasing wealth inequality makes that harder to do. And that's more of a preventative factor than a curative one. It's extremely hard to change mind in general, and it gets harder as people age.
I know Bernie talks about oligarchs a lot, but i think this was effectively his approach:
And it has garnered so much support. I would love if stock standard democrats started moving that direction. There was another thread recently that highlighted that the majority of people in the US support some pretty "progressive" beliefs: medicare for all, reducing aid to Israel, subsidized pre-K. If we could get those and other platforms like anti-trust action (with my girl Lina Khan), create solutions to the housing crisis (via a whole consortium approach like construction, progressive property taxes, and regulatory overhaul) as positional issues I think we could have a shoe in candidate in 2028.
Could someone pass that info along to Hakeem Jefferies?
Oh. So the messaging that "the unelectable left" has been screaming about since 2016 is popular and will probably work? What a twist!
Gods. Can't believe it took a decade of galaxy-braining by establishment Dems and things getting exponentially worse before it was figured out.
Ok, well I can....but that's because I know they really didn't want to admit it.
Am I completely misunderstanding what you're saying? To me the article suggests exactly the opposite:
The results here conclude pretty strongly that the messaging that "the unelectable left" has been screaming about since 2016 is not popular and is not the right strategy:
The issue isn't progressive policy, but the way progressives talk about politics.
According to their polling, speaking to people's personal economy in a patriotic, positive way, getting working class folk their fair share in a way that is not overbearing, non-combative (and probably non-partisan) way seems to be the big deal.
Saying a large percentage of the country are brainwashed trumpists,, that others who don't share my opinions are irredeemable, that it's "us" against "them" and all the other main progressive messaging modes are not the winning plays.
Who could have guessed that we catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and people aren't in a mode to change their minds if they're being yelled at, antagonized or in other ways not being treated as thinking, sensible people?
From Bernie's initial announcement of his presidential campaign in 2016:
That doesn't sound badgery to me. The badgery was the talking heads saying $15/hr minimum wage would tank the economy.
I don't think it's worthwhile to have a long conversation about why an independent running as a Democrat, who was famously lauded by many progressives for not compromising, and whose whole presidential campaign and political career was mostly shouting about "The establishment" was not a constructive, winning strategy for the Democrats.
That's even before we get into how Sanders didn't pull out of the 2016 primary for weeks after Clinton had won it, before we get into his messaging.
Or getting into Sanders' 2020 primary and labelling a bunch of what should-be allies as "caving to establishment pressure". And his congressional record of opposing incremental changes that could win votes because of viewing the need for drastic changes as the only option, although that change was way outside political reality.
That's also all before the survey this comment section is about, and how shouting at rich people, corporations, oligarchs etc. is not the winning message now. It probably wasn't then either, and Sanders has been making those shouts for decades.
With the level of regulatory capture we have in the US today, and of 15 years ago, calling the people out who are actively working against your interests is important. I'm quoting the article itself and it clearly lays "shout at X" as a part of the messaging.
I don't believe Bernie has ever said anything about us vs them. The othering and talk of "deplorables" or "garbage" has come from centrist, institutional democrats. The only us vs them in progressive politics is 1% vs 99%, and very few people fall under that banner.
When I have come across leftist threads on social media complaining about not gaining traction, I would classify the philosophy as what this group described as the "divide-and-conquer playbook".
I think the kitchen table option being promoted as feasible now would not have polled so well a couple of years ago. That was before tariff-driven inflation, before Iran-war-driven inflation, and many people who wanted to believe that Trump, as a strongman, could just tell issues to be fixed and life would get better (but not in his first term because Deep State) had no counterfactuals to contend with.
I don't have time to do it right now, but I would love to go back and look at what messaging polling like this has been like over the last 10-15 years. I suspect that part of the reason why this is now an acceptable default position is because of the persuasion from the more principled/progressive wing that have been steadily beating that drum for years.
That's why I've always been less of a believer in the popularism/message to the moment approach and more of a field of dreams/"if you build it, they will come" kinda guy.
This is true, but Trump was a populist running on an anti-corruption, anti-establishment,"they don't care about you" platform.
Just the intelligent people knew it was a lie and knew it would beat establishment politics.
The instant Trump polled more than 0% the Democrats should have been pivoting hard.
I'm not American, but I assume democratic voters might not be big on the whole "forced support of genocide" thing.
[comment redacted]
I hope people take the time to learn about the conflict and to do the right thing, beyond My Team Their Team thinking . It's not just Jewish people either I think living comfortably far away a lot of folks are okay with the abstracted suffering of others.
I mean, the alternative is Republicans with a forced support of genocide so..........
This is useful data that I, as a neighbour to the North, hope gets adopted. But. Whether or not it will be a winning message, I have doubts.
The states are deeply divided right now along a trust fault line that no message can get through. Even if the entire populace can agree on what the most important issue should be (no small feat by itself), it seems to be divided on who they trust to solve it. Trump can just as easy run on "gro-sireees (what are they even no one has ever heard of that word before)" and he did, and won.
It's not about saying the right things, when folks would rather vote for the guy who says all the wrong things but wave their colour flag.
This entire poll is about a deep desire by the Democrat side to have representation for a candidate who says these things. The Republican side says the same thing but they add in "we're willing to hurt other people so you can have more in this zero sum game" meanwhile the Democrats have no plan because they're also not interested in solving wealth inequality.