Why identity politics benefits the right more than the left

[ray245]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ump-racism

Over a year into Donald Trump’s presidency, commentators are still trying to understand the election and the explosion of intolerance following it. One common view is that Trump’s victory was a consequence of pervasive racism in American society.

Studies make clear, however, that racism has been decreasing over time, among Republicans and Democrats. (Views of immigration have also grown more favorable.) Moreover, since racism is deep-seated and longstanding, reference to it alone makes it difficult to understand the election of Barack Obama and Trump, the differences between Trump and the two previous Republican nominees on race and immigration, and the dramatic breakdown of social norms and civility following the elections. (Social scientists call this the “constant can’t explain a variable” problem.)

This does not mean racism is irrelevant; it matters, but social science suggests it does in more complicated ways than much commentary suggests.

Perhaps because straightforward bigotry has declined precipitously while more subtle, complex resentments remain, understanding how intolerance shapes politics requires examining not just beliefs, but also the relationship between beliefs and the environments people find themselves in. This distinction has important implications for how we interpret and address contemporary social and political problems.

Rather than being directly translated into behavior, psychologists tell us beliefs can remain latent until “triggered”. In a fascinating study, Karen Stenner shows in The Authoritarian Dynamic that while some individuals have “predispositions” towards intolerance, these predispositions require an external stimulus to be transformed into actions. Or, as another scholar puts it: “It’s as though some people have a button on their foreheads, and when the button is pushed, they suddenly become intensely focused on defending their in-group … But when they perceive no such threat, their behavior is not unusually intolerant. So the key is to understand what pushes that button.”

What pushes that button, Stenner and others find, is group-based threats. In experiments researchers easily shift individuals from indifference, even modest tolerance, to aggressive defenses of their own group by exposing them to such threats. Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson, for example, found that simply making white Americans aware that they would soon be a minority increased their propensity to favor their own group and become wary of those outside it. (Similar effects were found among Canadians. Indeed, although this tendency is most dangerous among whites since they are the most powerful group in western societies, researchers have consistently found such propensities in all groups.)

Building on such research, Diana Mutz recently argued that Trump’s stress on themes like growing immigration, the power of minorities and the rise of China highlighted status threats and fears particularly among whites without a college education, prompting a “defensive reaction” that was the most important factor in his election. This “defensive reaction” also explains why Trump’s post-election racist, xenophobic and sexist statements and reversal of traditional Republican positions on trade and other issues have helped him – they keep threats to whites front and center, provoking anger, fear and a strong desire to protect their own group.

Understanding why Trump found it easy to trigger these reactions requires examining broader changes in American society. In an excellent new book, Uncivil Agreement, Lilliana Mason analyzes perhaps the most important of these: a decades-long process of “social sorting”. Mason notes that although racial and religious animosity has been present throughout American history, only recently has it lined up neatly along partisan lines. In the past, the Republican and Democratic parties attracted supporters with different racial, religious, ideological and regional identities, but gradually Republicans became the party of white, evangelical, conservative and rural voters, while the Democrats became associated with non-whites, non-evangelical, liberal and metropolitan voters.

This lining up of identities dramatically changes electoral stakes: previously if your party lost, other parts of your identity were not threatened, but today losing is also a blow to your racial, religious, regional and ideological identity. (Mason cites a study showing that in the week following Obama’s 2012 election, Republicans felt sadder than American parents after the Newtown school shooting or Bostonians after the Boston Marathon bombing.) This social sorting has led partisans of both parties to engage in negative stereotyping and even demonization. (One study found less support for “out-group” marriage among partisan Republicans and Democrats than for interracial marriage among Americans overall.)

Once the other party becomes an enemy rather than an opponent, winning becomes more important than the common good and compromise becomes an anathema. Such situations also promote emotional rather than rational evaluations of policies and evidence. Making matters worse, social scientists consistently find that the most committed partisans, those who are the angriest and have the most negative feelings towards out-groups, are the most politically engaged.

What does all this mean for those who oppose Trump and want to fight the dangerous trends his presidency has unleashed?

The short-term goal must be winning elections, and this means not helping Trump rile up his base by activating their sense of “threat” and inflaming the grievances and anger that lead them to rally around him. This will require avoiding the type of “identity politics” that stresses differences and creates a sense of “zero-sum” competition between groups and instead emphasizing common values and interests.

Stenner, for example, notes that “all the available evidence indicates that exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference … are the surest ways to aggravate [the] intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness … Nothing inspires greater tolerance from the intolerant than an abundance of common and unifying beliefs, practices, rituals, institutions and processes.”

Relatedly, research suggests that calling people racist when they do not see themselves that way is counterproductive. As noted above, while there surely are true bigots, studies show that not all those who exhibit intolerant behavior harbor extreme racial animus. Moreover, as Stanford psychologist Alana Conner notes, if the goal is to diminish intolerance “telling people they’re racist, sexist and xenophobic is going to get you exactly nowhere. It’s such a threatening message. One of the things we know from social psychology is when people feel threatened, they can’t change, they can’t listen.”

This has obvious implications for recent debates about civility. Incivility is central to Trump’s strategy – it helps him galvanize his supporters by reminding them how “bad” and “threatening” the other side is. Since this has become such a hot-button topic on the left, it is worth being clear what incivility is. There is no definition of democracy that does not accept peaceful protest and other forms of vociferous political engagement. Incivility is about form – not substance; it is consistently defined by scholars as including invective, ridicule, emotionality, histrionics and other forms of personal attacks or norm-defying behavior. By engaging in even superficially similar tactics, Democrats abet Trump’s ability to do this – as one Trump supporter put it, every time Democrats attack him “it makes me angry, which causes me to want to defend him more” – potentially alienate wavering Republican-leaning independents, and help divert debate from policies, corruption and other substantive issues.

Of course, there is a double standard here and this, along with the psychic release that comes with venting the anger and grievances that have been building over the past year, are the rationales given by the left for incivility. But against these must be weighed incivility’s impact on upcoming elections as well as the overall health of democracy. (Scholars consistently find that incivility spreads rapidly, generates anger and defensive reactions, demobilizes moderates and activates the strongest partisans, corrodes faith in government, trust in institutions and respect for our fellow citizens.)

Over the long term of course the goal is repairing democracy and diminishing intolerance and for this promoting cross-cutting cleavages within civil society and political organizations is absolutely necessary. (Here, recent debates about ideological diversity and the new grassroots activism within the Democratic party is relevant.) Scholars have long recognized the necessity of cross-cutting cleavages to healthy democracy. In his classic study, the Social Requisites of Democracy, Seymour Martin Lipset, for example, noted that “the available evidence suggests that the chances for stable democracy are enhanced to the extent that groups and individuals have a number of cross-cutting, politically relevant affiliations”.

More specifically, research has linked cross-cutting cleavages with toleration, moderation and conflict prevention. This too has implications for contemporary debates about “identity politics”. Perhaps ironically, identity politics is a both more powerful and efficacious for Republicans (and rightwing populists more generally) than it is for Democrats, since the former are more homogeneous.

As long, therefore, as politics is a fight between clearly bounded identity groups, appeals and threats to group identity will benefit Republicans more than Democrats, which is presumably why Steve Bannon infamously remarked that he couldn’t “get enough” of the left’s “race-identity politics”. “The longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em ... I want them to talk about race and identity … every day.”

In addition, Americans are more divided socially than they are on the issues; there is significant agreement even on controversial topics like abortion, gun control, immigration and economic policy. Promoting cross-cutting cleavages and diminishing social divisions might therefore help productive policymaking actually occur.

Is our ultimate goal ensuring the compatibility of diversity and democracy? Then promoting the overlapping interests and identifications that enable citizens to become more comfortable with difference and thus more tolerant and trusting, is absolutely necessary.

There's certainly some food for thought here. I've believed that the strength of progressivism has always been it's willingly to embrace people and get them to change their mindset over the course of time. Has that changed among progressives in general? I'm not entirely sure but the rise of identity politics is something that's becoming more prevalent in our political dialogue. That might not benefit the progressive movment in the long run.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think it depends on what you mean by "identity politics". If you mean treating certain groups as the enemy based on race, gender, religion, etc., and pitting one group against another, then yeah, that helps the Right more than the Left. That shit is fascism's bread and butter. They're better at it than us and they always will be, unless we completely sell our souls and become no different from them.

But we have to be careful here, because I think that when a lot of people complain about "identity politics", what they're complaining about is that the Left acknowledges social injustice exists and needs to be addressed, and that makes a lot of people (particularly a lot of white men) feel very uncomfortable and insecure. No doubt that discomfort and insecurity played a major role in fueling Trumpism, and Trump and his allies and their masters in the Kremlin knew how to stoke it to maximum effect. But these are issues that we cannot afford to walk away from, because to do so would be to betray everything we should stand for.

I've heard a lot of that kind of talk since 2016, from the Right and even, I'm sorry to say, from the Left: basically that the Left/Democrats need to stop talking about social justice or racism or sexism or whatever if we want to have a political future. In short, that we shouldn't raise any issue that makes predominantly white male conservatives feel uncomfortable.

I don't buy that. We'll lose far more support than we'll gain doing that, and more importantly, it wouldn't fucking matter: we would already have conceded our most fundamental values in advance. This argument is essentially saying "You need to surrender to avoid being defeated." And the Left has done too much surrendering already.

So: I'm opposed to identity politics in the sense of viewing certain races/genders/etc. collectively as the enemy, or pitting one group against another. However, we need to be able to keep talking about the very real injustices confronted by women and minorities, and keep working to address them, without being afraid of a political backlash for doing so.

[Tribble]

Yaaaa... considering we've reached the stage where the majority of Republicans supported Trump splitting up children from parents and putting them into concentration camps, IMO the USA has gone far beyond the point where "let's all play nice" and "don't critique them too much 'cause it might hurt their feelings" are viable strategies. The USA in now in the postion where the choices literally are "the Party which, while flawed, believes in a Democratic Republic and the Rule of Law" and "the Party which openly campaigns on turning the USA into a fascist state".

[ray245]

I don't buy that. We'll lose far more support than we'll gain doing that, and more importantly, it wouldn't fucking matter: we would already have conceded our most fundamental values in advance. This argument is essentially saying "You need to surrender to avoid being defeated." And the Left has done too much surrendering already.

So: I'm opposed to identity politics in the sense of viewing certain races/genders/etc. collectively as the enemy, or pitting one group against another. However, we need to be able to keep talking about the very real injustices confronted by women and minorities, and keep working to address them, without being afraid of a political backlash for doing so.

As much it would make sense from our POV, the article is suggesting our methods will simply not have the change we are hoping for.

Yaaaa... considering we've reached the stage where the majority of Republicans supported Trump splitting up children from parents and putting them into concentration camps, IMO the USA has gone far beyond the point where "let's all play nice" and "don't critique them too much 'cause it might hurt their feelings" are viable strategies. The USA in now in the postion where the choices literally are "the Party which, while flawed, believes in a Democratic Republic and the Rule of Law" and "the Party which openly campaigns on turning the USA into a fascist state".

Things are quite horrible for people in the US. But the question is whether using identity politics as a counter-strategy is going to benefit the left in the end. What we assume to be a morally responsible approach might simply not work because of human behaviour. People aren't rational as much as they are emotional creatures. The article is implying the methods that we think will work might actually not work out in our favour.

[Zaune]

Things are quite horrible for people in the US. But the question is whether using identity politics as a counter-strategy is going to benefit the left in the end. What we assume to be a morally responsible approach might simply not work because of human behaviour. People aren't rational as much as they are emotional creatures. The article is implying the methods that we think will work might actually not work out in our favour.

So which minority groups do you think we should throw under the bus to appease the people who haven't had a new idea since the Reagan administration, in the hope that we won't overtax their tolerance for people who don't meet their definition of "normal"?

And I concur with Tribble's assessment: We're past the point where we can have some sort of rational, reasonable dialogue with anyone whose opinion matters a damn in the GOP. It's one thing to have an immediate emotional reaction to a concept that isn't really based on the facts, quite another to treat any attempt to introduce those facts into the conversation as some kind of personal attack.

[ray245]

So which minority groups do you think we should throw under the bus to appease the people who haven't had a new idea since the Reagan administration, in the hope that we won't overtax their tolerance for people who don't meet their definition of "normal"?

And I concur with Tribble's assessment: We're past the point where we can have some sort of rational, reasonable dialogue with anyone whose opinion matters a damn in the GOP. It's one thing to have an immediate emotional reaction to a concept that isn't really based on the facts, quite another to treat any attempt to introduce those facts into the conversation as some kind of personal attack.

The question isn't about whether it's right or wrong to throw minorities under the bus. Obviously it's morally wrong to do so.

The question is whether defending them via what people called identity politics is helping progressive win elections. All the protest and etc are useless it people like Trump wins an re-elections and continue to stay in power.

Are people interested in winning the next election? If so, how are they actually to convince the swing voters and states that voted for Trump and co? That's the question the article is posing.

[Tribble]

Things are quite horrible for people in the US. But the question is whether using identity politics as a counter-strategy is going to benefit the left in the end. What we assume to be a morally responsible approach might simply not work because of human behaviour. People aren't rational as much as they are emotional creatures. The article is implying the methods that we think will work might actually not work out in our favour.

Except the USA has gone far beyond identity politics in the sense of race, religion, gender etc. The argument now is over the fundamental principles of American society and how it functions. The Democrats, while flawed, generally believe in a democratic republic with the rule of law (aka the USA's founding principles) while the Republicans are openly calling for a fascist dictatorship (including concentration camps) with Trump as their Fuhrer. That's the only real "identity politics" that matter here because if the Republicans end up winning this everything else is a moot point.

Everyone knows what Trump and his party stand for (if they didn't already). There is no such thing as "moderate" Republicans, as their purgings in the primaries have made clear. I really don't see why Democrats should be pretending otherwise, nor why Democrats should be moderating their tone in the slightest under such circumstances. America's choice in this midterm is clear: vote for the party which supports a democratic republic and rule of law, or vote for a party which supports fascism. There literally is no middle ground here anymore, and the morally responsible approach is call it for what it is.

And how exactly does one go about toning down the ideas of democracy and rule of law for the sake of getting votes anyways?

[ray245]

Things are quite horrible for people in the US. But the question is whether using identity politics as a counter-strategy is going to benefit the left in the end. What we assume to be a morally responsible approach might simply not work because of human behaviour. People aren't rational as much as they are emotional creatures. The article is implying the methods that we think will work might actually not work out in our favour.

Except the USA has gone far beyond identity politics in the sense of race, religion, gender etc. The argument now is over the fundamental principles of American society and how it functions. The Democrats, while flawed, generally believe in a democratic republic with the rule of law (aka the USA's founding principles) while the Republicans are openly calling for a fascist dictatorship (including concentration camps) with Trump as their Fuhrer. That's the only real "identity politics" that matter here because if the Republicans end up winning this everything else is a moot point.

Everyone knows what Trump and his party stand for (if they didn't already). There is no such thing as "moderate" Republicans, as their purgings in the primaries have made clear. I really don't see why Democrats should be pretending otherwise, nor why Democrats should be moderating their tone in the slightest under such circumstances. America's choice in this midterm is clear: vote for the party which supports a democratic republic and rule of law, or vote for a party which supports fascism. There literally is no middle ground here anymore, and the morally responsible approach is call it for what it is.

And how exactly does one go about toning down the ideas of democracy and rule of law for the sake of getting votes anyways?

Is this going to help democrats retake the white house? At the end of the day, the Democrats still need to win back the states that voted for Trump. That's a fact we cannot ignore.

[Tribble]

Is this going to help democrats retake the white house? At the end of the day, the Democrats still need to win back the states that voted for Trump. That's a fact we cannot ignore.

Would saying "we will follow the ideals of a democratic republic and rule of law" work to take back the white house? I would hope so. If not, as I've said before the USA is far past the point where moderation is going to work anyways.

I'm sure that there were plenty of people who came to regret not opposing the Nazis more directly when they still had the chance, for fear of upsetting their voting base and people who may have been on the fence. What this article is proposing is nothing better than those who held their tongue during the Nazis rise to power hoping that the moderates will swing their way, or perhaps that Hitler will eventually tone down his language once he gets what he wants. Its delusional.

If anything, not taking a strong stand here will be seen as a sign of weakness, not strength. Republicans will carry on with their plans knowing that they are winning, while moderates will likely become more demoralized as they realise the Democrats dont really stand for anything. What do Democrats stand for, if they will not even openly support a democratic republic and rule of law for fear of upsetting people? It's pretty sad that those ideas are now seen as being controversial and provocative.

[ray245]

Would saying "we will follow the ideals of a democratic republic and rule of law" work to take back the white house? I would hope so. If not, as I've said before the USA is far past the point where moderation is going to work anyways.

I'm sure that there were plenty of people who came to regret not opposing the Nazis more directly when they still had the chance, for fear of upsetting their voting base and people who may have been on the fence. What this article is proposing is nothing better than those who held their tongue during the Nazis rise to power hoping that the moderates will swing their way, or perhaps that Hitler will eventually tone down his language once he gets what he wants. Its delusional.

If anything, not taking a strong stand here will be seen as a sign of weakness, not strength. Republicans will carry on with their plans knowing that they are winning, while moderates will likely become more demoralized as they realise the Democrats dont really stand for anything. What do Democrats stand for, if they will not even openly support a democratic republic and rule of law for fear of upsetting people? It's pretty sad that those ideas are now seen as being controversial and provocative.

If things is too far gone as you say, how are you going to reverse the situation where progressives stand a chance of winning the presidency? What I am not hearing is how taking a stand would recapture the lost states and the voters?

The question at the end of the day is how much value do Americans really place on the idea of a democratic republic and rule of law? We should not underestimate the amount of people that were willing to throw all those ideas away if they think their privileges are being threatened in some form or another.

[Civil War Man]

There's an old saying attributed to Harry Truman: Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time.

The strategy of conceding more and more to the Republicans in order to avoid hurting the feelings of right-wing white people has only resulted in ceding control of government on almost every level, from Federal to Local, to Republicans. The only reason things are starting to turn around now is that the Republicans are being so openly corrupt, incompetent, and downright treacherous that it's galvanizing everyone else. Now is the time to be ever more militant in the defense of the most vulnerable among us. Anyone who is unwilling to do so in the face of this government's open contempt for the American people and institutionalized kidnapping of immigrant children is worth less than nothing.

[ray245]

There's an old saying attributed to Harry Truman: Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time.

The strategy of conceding more and more to the Republicans in order to avoid hurting the feelings of right-wing white people has only resulted in ceding control of government on almost every level, from Federal to Local, to Republicans. The only reason things are starting to turn around now is that the Republicans are being so openly corrupt, incompetent, and downright treacherous that it's galvanizing everyone else. Now is the time to be ever more militant in the defense of the most vulnerable among us. Anyone who is unwilling to do so in the face of this government's open contempt for the American people and institutionalized kidnapping of immigrant children is worth less than nothing.

This does not automatically translate into winning more votes either. Just because the past strategy of Democrats is flawed does not mean the alternative is any better.

[Civil War Man]

This does not automatically translate into winning more votes either. Just because the past strategy of Democrats is flawed does not mean the alternative is any better.

Then there is nothing lost in continuing to fight. If Democrats can only win elections by abandoning their supporters, they can only stay in power so long as they continue to abandon their supporters, at which point them winning is not an accomplishment. And as I've said, they've already tried the strategy of trying to court white Republicans, and the result has been losing elections everywhere, because surprise surprise, those white Republicans continued to vote for Republicans.

If you are right, and they can't win by standing up for the people who support them, then the country is beyond any hope of redemption and the only solution is to burn it all down and hope something better grows from the ashes. If you are wrong, then the electoral strategy you are advocating is a losing one. Either way, nothing worthwhile is gained by capitulating.

[ray245]

This does not automatically translate into winning more votes either. Just because the past strategy of Democrats is flawed does not mean the alternative is any better.

Then there is nothing lost in continuing to fight. If Democrats can only win elections by abandoning their supporters, they can only stay in power so long as they continue to abandon their supporters, at which point them winning is not an accomplishment. And as I've said, they've already tried the strategy of trying to court white Republicans, and the result has been losing elections everywhere, because surprise surprise, those white Republicans continued to vote for Republicans.

If you are right, and they can't win by standing up for the people who support them, then the country is beyond any hope of redemption and the only solution is to burn it all down and hope something better grows from the ashes. If you are wrong, then the electoral strategy you are advocating is a losing one. Either way, nothing worthwhile is gained by capitulating.

The US is very much more of a right-leaning nation than a left-leaning nation. That's something we must prepare to accept. Which means right-leaning factions gets to dictate the political direction of a country more so than the left-leaning factions.

If the only alternative you have is to burn the whole system down, then are you really someone who is really defending the ideas of a democratic republic?

[Civil War Man]

The US is very much more of a right-leaning nation than a left-leaning nation. That's something we must prepare to accept. Which means right-leaning factions gets to dictate the political direction of a country more so than the left-leaning factions.

Accepting right-wing dominance of American politics only guarantees further right-wing dominance of American politics. Your "winning" electoral strategy is for the Democrats to cede the entire country to those who would destroy it in pursuit of power by betraying their base in the vain hope of winning the votes of people who either will never vote for them, or will only support them so long as they continue to betray their base.

If the only alternative you have is to burn the whole system down, then are you really someone who is really defending the ideas of a democratic republic?

Yes, if the choice is between accepting a fascist takeover of the nation and burning the whole system down. Defending the ideals of a democratic republic necessitates tearing it down if it is taken over, corrupted, and dismantled by an authoritarian regime. "A Republic, if you can keep it."

[ray245]

Accepting right-wing dominance of American politics only guarantees further right-wing dominance of American politics. Your "winning" electoral strategy is for the Democrats to cede the entire country to those who would destroy it in pursuit of power by betraying their base in the vain hope of winning the votes of people who either will never vote for them, or will only support them so long as they continue to betray their base.

Some of the biggest wins from the "progressive" elements in elections was when they were able to bridge the divide and capture a wide spectrum of the American voting public.

Yes, if the choice is between accepting a fascist takeover of the nation and burning the whole system down. Defending the ideals of a democratic republic necessitates tearing it down if it is taken over, corrupted, and dismantled by an authoritarian regime. "A Republic, if you can keep it."

ANd how many people are actually prepared to do this? Because talk is cheap. I highly doubt any progressive is able to tear down the system by 2020.

[Aether]

For the last couple of decades both political parties have shifted to the right, placing your typical Democrat representative squarely in the Centrist box. Progressives need to oust Republicans as well as Democrats. That's a tall order.

[ray245]

For the last couple of decades both political parties have shifted to the right, placing your typical Democrat representative squarely in the Centrist box. Progressives need to oust Republicans as well as Democrats. That's a tall order.

Has the democrats moved to the right or have they always been quite centre-right? Actual progressives have always been a small minority in the US.

[Tribble]

Do you believe that all Americans have the right to vote?
Do you believe in a free press?
Do you believe in a seperation of church and state?
Do you believe in an independent judiciary?
Do you believe in independant law enforcment?
Do you believe that everyone has the right to due process?
Do you believe that the president should be subject to the rule of law?
Do you believe in the seperation of powers?
Do you believe that threatening political opponents with jail is unacceptable behaviour?
Do you believe that concentration camps are bad? And that throwing children into them is bad?
Do you believe that politicians colluding with an enemy foreign power to help ensure their victory is bad?

The answer to all of the above by Trump, his party and the bulk of his voting base is a firm no.

Tell me, which of the above do you feel the Democrats should compromise on and abandon in order to attract "moderate" Republican voters? And what exactly do you think the result will be if they did?

[ray245]

Do you believe that all Americans have the right to vote?
Do you believe in a free press?
Do you believe in a seperation of church and state?
Do you believe in an independent judiciary?
Do you believe that everyone has the right to due process?
Do you believe that the president should be subject to the rule of law?
Do you believe in the seperation of powers?
Do you believe that threatening political opponents with jail is unacceptable behaviour?
Do you believe that concentration camps are bad? And that throwing children into them is bad?
Do you believe that colluding with an enemy foreign power to help ensure your victory is bad?

The answer to all of the above by Trump, his party and the bulk of his voting base is a firm no.

Tell me, which of the above do you feel the Democrats should compromise on and abandon in order to attract "moderate" Republican voters? And what exactly do you think the result will be if they did?

Should the Democrats compromise? Morally speaking, that's a firm no. But at some point, we have to recognise there is an actual need to win back the swing votes that went for Trump. Tell me, how exactly are you going to win back the presidency in the next election?

None of your points so far have actually addressed the issue. How are you going to win elections as a progressive? If appealing to people's morality is not going to convince a significant portion of the electorate and swing votes, how are you going to win an election?

Put it this way. The whole election system in the US is set against progressives. The Guardian article suggests how society behaves is something that is set against progressives as well. A progressive will start with far more disadvantages than a conservative in a place like the US. The rulebook is set in favour of the conservatives.

[WATCH-MAN]

Do you believe that all Americans have the right to vote?
Do you believe in a free press?
Do you believe in a seperation of church and state?
Do you believe in an independent judiciary?
Do you believe in independant law enforcment?
Do you believe that everyone has the right to due process?
Do you believe that the president should be subject to the rule of law?
Do you believe in the seperation of powers?
Do you believe that threatening political opponents with jail is unacceptable behaviour?
Do you believe that concentration camps are bad? And that throwing children into them is bad?
Do you believe that politicians colluding with an enemy foreign power to help ensure their victory is bad?

The answer to all of the above by Trump, his party and the bulk of his voting base is a firm no.

Are you sure that the bulk of Tramps voting base would answer all these questions with a firm NO ?

Are you sure that there are no questions which would be answered with NO even by some Democrats?

Do you really think that all Americans have the right to vote - even those who are still underage or unfit to plead?

Do you really think that the press should be so free that oligopolies and monopolies, owned by media moguls like Rupert Murdoch or Silvio Berlusconi, are possible? Or could it be sensible to consider to limit the freedom of the press to ensure that it can fulfil the very task for which's fulfilment it is granted that freedom.

Do you want a laical state? Because the USA are not a laical state.

Does independent judiciary mean a judiciary with impunity?

Does independent judiciary mean, that judges are not chosen by those who may have an interest in their future ruling?

What does "independant law enforcment" means to you?

Does it mean, that they can arbitrary decide which delinquents they are letting go and which they prosecute?

...

Maybe you shouldn't see all in either black or white.

[Tribble]

Do you believe that all Americans have the right to vote?
Do you believe in a free press?
Do you believe in a seperation of church and state?
Do you believe in an independent judiciary?
Do you believe in independant law enforcment?
Do you believe that everyone has the right to due process?
Do you believe that the president should be subject to the rule of law?
Do you believe in the seperation of powers?
Do you believe that threatening political opponents with jail is unacceptable behaviour?
Do you believe that concentration camps are bad? And that throwing children into them is bad?
Do you believe that politicians colluding with an enemy foreign power to help ensure their victory is bad?

The answer to all of the above by Trump, his party and the bulk of his voting base is a firm no.

Are you sure that the bulk of Tramps voting base would answer all these questions with a firm NO ?

Are you sure that there are no questions which would be answered with NO even by some Democrats?

Do you really think that all Americans have the right to vote - even those who are still underage or unfit to plead?

Do you really think that the press should be so free that oligopolies and monopolies, owned by media moguls like Rupert Murdoch or Silvio Berlusconi, are possible? Or could it be sensible to consider to limit the freedom of the press to ensure that it can fulfil the very task for which's fulfilment it is granted that freedom.

Do you want a laical state? Because the USA are not a laical state.

Does independent judiciary mean a judiciary with impunity?

Does independent judiciary mean, that judges are not chosen by those who may have an interest in their future ruling?

What does "independant law enforcment" means to you?

Does it mean, that they can arbitrary decide which delinquents they are letting go and which they prosecute?

...

Maybe you shouldn't see all in either black or white.

In this case, yes it IS a black and white issue IMO. Voting Republican is voting for Trump facisim, there is no other way around it, and it's silly and dangerous to pretend otherwise. We can debate about what kinds of things are reasonable limits to rights... but it's rather moot atm as the Republicans are actively trying to get of constitutional norms and rights outright, or at least alter them in such a way that it is meaningless to anyone whose not a white, straight, Christian, card-carrying gun-totting male Republican. Or maybe youve missed all the recent purges and resignations of Republicans not deemed "conservative enough" by their voting base? Not to mention all the stuff Trump has already said and done, and plans to do? If you honestly think that catering to Republicans this time around is going to accomplish anything, you're being ridiculously naive.

[Tribble]

Honestly, I have to wonder what some are thinking if a campaign running on something as basic as "we support the general principles of a democratic republic and rule of law" is now seen as too extreme and progressive to be seriously considered? I'm kind of worried here.

[ray245]

Honestly, I have to wonder what some are thinking if a campaign running on something as basic as "we support the general principles of a democratic republic and rule of law" is now seen as too extreme and progressive to be seriously considered? I'm kind of worried here.

If society as a whole, or those that do form the electorate moved further to the right and begins to tolerate all those policies implemented by Trump and the Republicans, what are you going to do about it?

[Tribble]

Honestly, I have to wonder what some are thinking if a campaign running on something as basic as "we support the general principles of a democratic republic and rule of law" is now seen as too extreme and progressive to be seriously considered? I'm kind of worried here.

If society as a whole, or those that do form the electorate moved further to the right and begins to tolerate all those policies implemented by Trump and the Republicans, what are you going to do about it?

I dont live in the US, so it doesn't impact me as much directly. At least until the US demands Canada become a puppet state like the Nazi puppet states in WW2.

If this were happening in my country atm, I would certainly resist it for as long as possible via all legal means, and hope that's enough. Get out there and vote, get others to do so. Have hope that there's enough sane people left to put a stop to this before there is a full repeat of 1930s Germany.

If that fails, then the only alternatives are captitulate to facism, which would inevitably still end in disaster, or actively resist. Active resistance, while having a low chance of success, is still preferable to at best being a completely subservient slave class, or at worst being shoved into a concentration camp and/or killed, since I would be one of the targets.

I don't think it's quite reached the point of active resistance or complete capitulation yet in the USA but it will if moderates and Democrats throw in the towel on basic issues like the idea of a democratic republic and rule of law, which is what you seem to be suggesting.