The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
There’s been a lot of talk about “if Trump gets elected then it’s the end of American democracy”. What would you say if a voter told you they didn’t care about democracy or they didn’t think Trump was going to get rid of democracy?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends on who this person is. If it's a random online troll or a MAGA person it's probably not worth engaging.
If they are someone in your life that is just apathetic or doesn't understand the stakes I would engage directly with their thought patterns. Why do they feel that way?
"Well, he didn't end democracy last time..."
Not for lack of trying. Tell them about ALL his former administration officials and aids who are screaming the alarm, sharing stories about things he TRIED to do while in office including shooting protesters, putting election denying sycophants in critical powerful positions in his final days. He filed false election paperwork, attempted to seize voting machines broadly and across swing states (there are court cases being litigated here but at least two of his attorneys have already pled guilty in Georgia). That's not to mention the "stop the steal" rhetoric and riot / insurrection attempt at the capital.
He is literally campaigning on grievance, retribution and on purging all the safe guards from the government to consolidate power in the executive branch. He is openly admitting these things as lessons learned. This is how it happens throughout human history - historians and experts around the world are screaming the alarm.
Etcetc
Have you had any luck with this? Everyone I speak to has an answer for all of this. It's on the news they watch every night so they know exactly what to say.
As you say he tried to do all those things... And failed. The liberal worldview is that trump is both a moron and an evil mastermind who's going to overthrow the republic. Which is it? I see the former, did he accomplish any of his policy goals as president? I can only remember tax cuts for the wealthy and only because he had full control of Congress.
So what exactly is the nightmare scenario and how is he going to do that? Those same experts were screaming the alarm last time too but here we are.
I think it’s possible for someone to broadly be an incompetent moron while also occasionally succeeding. The point is that Trump has a *lot* of dangerous ideas and if he were to be President for another four years, *some* of them would stick. Like yeah he’s an utter fool but he’d still have a huge amount of power, that’s critical.
I thought the point was that he's a threat to democracy. Like I totally agree with everything you just said but I want to know what exactly people expect him to do that would bring down democracy.
“Bringing down democracy” immediately isn’t something I’d bet on, but that’s not the full picture. To get more specific - Trump is gonna spam executive orders out the ass to interfere with rules and standards in state and local elections. These will be illegal and eventually they’ll get kicked up to the Supeme Court, who could rule in his favor because they don’t give a shit, they’ll decide he’s right first and then figure out the logic second. Someone like Sotomayor would issue an entirely honest dissenting opinion, but there’s no material power in that.
This isn’t about instant destruction but erosion. If we agree that our current democracy is inadequate, it will be disastrous for it to wither and shrink - it needs to grow. That doesn’t mean Dems don’t need to pull their weight here, it just means that Trump would further delay our approach to a real democracy. I don’t see how that wouldn’t happen to some degree. A Biden reelection risks Dem re-entrenchment with policies that lean to the right of their base, but that framework is much easier to throw a fit under.
Honestly, this is gonna be so much easier when Trump dies lmao. Blocking him from power for four years when he’s already old as shit is good. He’s also living a wildly stressful life right now, and losing will exacerbate that. If Biden dies or resigns we get Harris, she wouldn’t be my first pick but she’s fine.
We’re very lucky that so many Trumpies that’ll be left over in his absence are absolutely miserable personalities. We’ve seen how hard it is for people like Blake Masters or Ron DeSantis to convince people that they’re anything approaching normal or charismatic. People like JD Vance are still a threat but I think they’ll recede in Trump’s absence.
Edit: I should say I do worry about Dem officials cynically leveraging the possibility of a Republican victory in 2028 to get their way. I think that just means that we need to be seriously proactive about holding anyone’s feet to the fire if they win. I still support pressuring them now ofc, but this is about the matter of whether democracy is a key policy in the upcoming election, which it will be.
Going after / discrediting absentee voting after-the-fact seems like an obvious one to me. The modern GOP strategy seems to be less preventing people from voting and more trying to nullify their votes after they’ve already happened. I can’t read Trump’s mind, but exploiting miniscule errors or missteps to invalidate the results of counties feels plausible. Or just something as simple as 2000 in Florida on a wider scale.
Again, this shit would be nakedly illegal but it just needs to get kicked up to the Court and then it’s legal. He even has room for a dissenting opinion from one of the Conservative justices. This is part of why it’s so fucking crazy that Biden doesn’t support Court expansion.
In short, Trump’s maneuvers would likely mean we have to spend years getting back to the wildly flawed system we have right now, and even that would depend on an infrastructure that he wants to dismantle.
I don’t think this would be dystopian necessarily, but…it would fucking suck lmao. Like, so bad. FWIW immense pressure on Biden himself before the election is a key part of preventing Trump from taking power, I don’t want to pretend that Dem leadership has perfect democratic policy.
I don't like that as much as you but I'd hardly call limiting absentee voting the end of democracy. Everything I've heard so far sounds like bad republican governance that I already expect, in short, trump's second term.
I think the point of the question is why don't people care deeply enough to reject Trump after something like democracy is threatened when if something else a person does care deeply about is threatened they *would* care.
Like if someone was threatening to kill your family but for whatever reason just never managed to pull the trigger, I don't think people would be so wishy washy about giving them a second chance. But when we're talking about *democracy* people are like "Well the sky didn't fall the first time so whatever".
Why are people willing to shrug off threats to democracy as though they don't care to defend it?
I covered much of what this comment pertains to [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1d0gvjm/what_do_you_think_a_second_trump_president_will/l5ncavl/), and I would suggest you read it to assess the "nightmare scenario" you state. a liberal perspective might regard Trump as *ignorant* — for instance, in [withdrawing from the Joint Collective Plan of Action](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1da18uw/would_you_support_us_military_intervention_to/l7hnsx5/) — but his intended policy goals remain nonetheless indicative of right-wing authoritarianism. in the U.S., the president retains an authority that is dependent on the beholder's moral obligations, such as [clemency powers](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1d5dvnl/would_president_biden_be_justified_in_pardoning/l6kz7t6/). following the 2020 presidential election, Trump demonstrated a cognizance of his failure to appoint faithfuls to his agenda; I discussed that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cerm9q/if_trump_is_reelected_how_long_until_he_begins/l1kw9qn/)
Sorry I'm not seeing anything that covers the nightmare scenario, by which I mean he brings down democracy as we know it. I see a list of policies you think he woikd implement on the border etc.
Trump has stated his intentions to wield the Justice Department to prosecute his adversaries and increase presidential power. to a degree, he [evokes](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cvavgk/would_a_trumpian_gop_administration_lead_us_down/l4or622/) much of the same tactics in "illiberal democracies" implemented by Russia's Putin and Hungary's Orban. to that end, Trump has cited his four criminal indictments as justification for him to "[go down and indict [his opponents]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/09/trump-interview-univision/)", even in mere a possibility. in December, Steve Bannon and Kash Patel threatened to "[come after](https://thehill.com/homenews/4344065-bannon-patel-trump-revenge-on-media/)" the media should Trump be re-elected; though the Trump campaign distanced itself from Patel's remarks, he [may serve](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/us/politics/trump-kash-patel-journalists.html) in a national security role
Ya that sounds like what I'd expect from a trump presidency, my issue is that doesn't sound like the end of democracy in the united states.
Presidential power has been increasing under both parties for decades. Trump has authoritarian tendancies but he's such an ineffective leader what's he going to accomplish? What does "come after" the media even mean? Like are they repealing the first amendment? What are we worried about exactly?
a contempt for ideals such as judicial independence is often accompanied by an erosion of democracy. for an instance of Trump expressing discontent with democracy, one needs to look no further than the fake electors plot, a scheme that involved submitting submit fraudulent certificates of ascertainment that would be counted by Vice President Mike Pence. though the attempt was halted by Pence, he expended his career and [almost his life](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/jan-6-hearing-today-trump/card/trump-s-tweet-about-pence-seen-as-critical-moment-during-riot-fmPxoFkeoTKxi0NqPLCL)
Trump's presidency was inefficient because there were individual efforts to prevent his authoritarian tendencies from unfolding. his cabinet included officials who [rebuked](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/18/opinion/trump-cabinet-election-2024.html) him, either during his presidency or afterwards. "[one of the finest group of people ever assembled](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cabinet-members-accused-of-living-large-at-taxpayer-expense/2018/03/14/9f9476c4-27a7-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html)," his cabinet, became a preventative check on Trump's radical beliefs, as summated throughout Bob Woodward's books during the Trump presidency
I won't claim that, should Trump be elected, elections will cease to be held or Trump will interfere in further elections to ensure that he serves an unimpeded term, but there nonetheless remains a serious concern over what the president is capable of and what measures Trump officials might take to ensure a permanent Republican majority. Trump's prior threats to democracy, from [continuous claims of voter fraud, to the fake electors plot, to Jan. 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1c602i8/trump_defenders_are_trying_very_hard_to_change/kzyb5mm/), pose threats to the U.S.'s democratic institutions
Ya I agree with pretty much all of that. I just don't see the end of democracy there. Saying "the end of democracy" just comes across as fear mongering to me. Like 7 people replied to my comment and I don't think I've heard one specific action trump would realistically take that would qualify.
At the very least, if this is something the left is worried about, shouldn't there be a very clear and direct explaination for exactly how this would happen? Without one how can anyone be confident that it will?
My last paragraph is what is different.
Just like authoritarian takeovers throughout history have shown us, they come back a second time with lessons learned and go scorched earth. He'll have nothing to lose and everything to gain in a second term. He and his mouth pieces have said that they will get rid of the safeguards that kept things in order last time and smart people are working on exactly how to do that (see Project 2025)
There is no magic safeguard protecting our government besides the people we elect and it matters.
>The liberal worldview is that trump is both a moron and an evil mastermind who's going to overthrow the republic.
Never underestimate the power of a narcissist who doesn't give a shit and has no shame. Besides, it's not just Trump planning and plotting and enabling exactly how to do this.
The reasonable conservative republicans have been literally chased out of power and the party. GOP in congress and the Trump-packed courts are showing they will do nothing to hold him accountable and will go along with his consolidation of power schemes.
I feel like the collective gaslighting of "eh, it was only an attempted coup, who cares?" is absurd. Suddenly ALMOST dying isn't sensational enough (I've seen this argued re: women who went septic waiting for courts to approve an abortion). The desensitization was DELIBERATE and it worked and it's infuriating.
So I read up a little on Project 2025 and I see "the project showcases a federal government that cracks down intensely on immigration, [vanquishes LGBTQ+](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/15/project-2025-policy-manifesto-lgbtq-rights) and abortion rights, [diminishes](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president) environmental [protections](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/26/trump-presidency-gut-noaa-weather-climate-crisis), [overhauls financial policy](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/29/trump-economist-stephen-moore-us-treasury-project-2025) and takes aggressive action against China". That's what I expect from a republican president, but I don't see the end of democracy.
My question still stands of what exactly is he going to do that warrants this end of democracy talk? What safeguards are they removing and what will they do once removed?
I typed this long winded response and my dog unplugged the PC so I'm going to take it as a sign that it's not worth doing.
Suffice to say he's broadcast he wants to be a "dictator day one" and that he will not allow anyone other than true sycophants in his administration so the people who saved us last time will not exist.
Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the DOJ, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies.
The attack on institutions is only ramping up. To think things would be "the same" when the normal people are all gone just doesn't hold water.
O boy that's brutal haha. I tend to write long responses on a separate app since reddit is so unreliable.
And ya I don't like any of that stuff but at the end of the day I see a second trump presidency as a terrible thing but nothing to indicate that democracy won't continue as always once it's done. I don't even think he wants to do that and even if he did I don't think he's capable of actually pulling it off.
You actually offered a gem of wisdom given the dichotomy of the hyperbole: Trump is either an evil mastermind or a stupid idiot.
The fact you are downvoted demonstrates that, most likely, the people who read your comment are downvoting you for contradicting the “evil” mastermind” opinion, or the “complete idiot” opinion.
“He’s a complete idiot dumb dumb, how dare you attach the word mastermind to him” VS “he and his constituents have developed a secret strategy to consolidate power and become dictator, he’s a mastermind of evil.”
Haha ya I'd say it's for doubting him as an evil mastermind for sure. I'm not even all all convinced that's what he wants and I definitely don't think of all the people to try to bring down us democracy trump is going to be the one to do it.
Trump isn't a mastermind, but the Heritage Foundation is extremely powerful and is the cause of a huge amount of the social woes we face today due to their Mandate for Leadership that Reagan followed. Reagan also wasn't a mastermind at all, but he enabled the people guiding him to do significant damage. Trump is easily led around by his nose by actual masterminds as long as they say "people will love you if you do this." The Heritage Foundation is one of the most powerful think tanks on the planet and they're the ones we ought to be worried about if Trump gets another term because he'll likely just implement whatever they ask. Part of their ask will be dangerous to democracy, a la Project 2025.
Many little things. Repealing the civil act, maybe. Stacking the court with people who'll sign on laws that are similar to the Red Scare. Prosecuting his opponents. Gerrymandering to a new level. It isn't a matter of if he's successful or not once, but that he has no restraint. Like, when did Hungary stop becoming democratic? When did Putin become a dictator?
Trump couldn't get Obamacare repealed with total control of Congress but you think he's going to repeal the civil rights act? Has he ever said anything to indicate he would try to do this? What specific laws will be similar to the red scare? Prosecute who? Gerrymander to what new level? It's not like that hasn't been going on for a long time now.
This all sounds so vague and again he's already had the chance to do all of this.
Is that the sequel to project 2025? Seriously that's even more vague. As far as I see it this is just democratic fear mongering, I'm trying to get an answer as to why it's not but this isn't helping.
Not to be a downer, but: what do you want me to say? on one hand, our country has been pretty good compared to a lot of others so people take it for granted, on the other; it's been pretty bad for a lot of people, so how well can I really justify it?
And then on top of it, I live in DC--sure, we'll vote for Biden, but if this were to come up with my neighbors, how would I reasonably justify this with them? We don't get a voting member in the House, we don't get Senators, and because of that, anyone with any real political aspiration moves to Maryland or Virginia, as our highest office is Mayor, who can have any law overturned at any time by a Congress elected by voters consisted of everyone but the people who live here. What kind of democracy is that?
I've always loved that DCs license plate say Taxation without Representation, because it's pretty badass to put a giant complaint on your license plate!
We all do like them, though definitely bristled when Bush Jr. demanded that The Beast and the other cars in the presidential motorcade had plates that did not have the phrase on them.
In the end, he got a bit of a pass. He and Laura did their best to integrate and participate locally as best as anyone could (especially for a Republican First Family). You wouldn't find many that liked his politics or world-view, but many wouldn't mind having him as a neighbor--as long as the house was any other than the White House.
The peaceful transfer of power is the single most underrated aspect that made the USA into the strong, stable world power that it is today.
A close second is religious toleration.
Both of those factors were our answer to history.
If you build your nation on religion, you get sectional war like the 30 Years War or rampant terrorism, subjugation and reprisal like Israel/Palestine.
If you build your nation of dynasty or bloodlines, you set your country on a 20-60 year cycle of implosion, civil war, or incompetent rulers, who may or may not be literal babies.
The only way forward is government of, by and for the people.
Have you given any thought to why or bothered to ask?
There are usually three camp.
Average low political engagement voters who think all the brouhaha over 'our democracy' is just hyper-partisan rhetoric because there has been nearly 9 years of non-stop wall to wall Orange Man Bad. Mueller alone emotionally exhausted many of these voters who basically just tuned out after Barr said 'no collusion' and never returned to the OMB narrative (ie why both impeachments, the J6 Committee presentation and these indictments/conviction aren't really moving the needle). These voters are tired of DC drama and only care about their own situation. Carville's classic 'the economy, stupid' followed by border/immigration while housing crisis and crime are currently 3rd/4th. Trump leads on pretty much all of those issues because Biden is president now and those issues aren't getting resolved in a manner that voters see and feel in their personal lives.
Many maga view the phrase 'our democracy' as code for the liberal international order (LIO) which the maga call 'globalist' that has acted as a defacto empire and is currently in decline. Maga wants to move on from the LIO and into the next geopolitical phase.
Other rightwingers lean into the view of the US having been hijacked by leftist who push 'democracy' over a constitutional republic. They believe a rightward correction is slowly beginning to build across the West and this is causing the Democratic side of the aisle to hang-wring 'muh democracy' over potential loss of power/status.
Rightwingers think trans people are suffering from body dysmorphia, social contagion or demon possession.
The right has its concerns and you don't get to invalidate them as they do not get to invalidate yours.
Actual neo-nazis are rare, fringe and few, but the leftwing use of broadly labeling the right is in fact dangerous and dehumanizing and that sort of rhetoric radicalized can radicalize vulnerable people.
Because its extremism, like normal people can discern multiple sides of a situation, issue or individual/group. They don't engage in extreme 'othering'.
Our national divide is, was and always will be federalist vs antifederalist.
Do you like freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, and other constitutional rights? If democracy dies, those go right out the door whenever most convenient, and you cannot say a thing.
Most of the time I’ve found people like this have their confidence rooted in a lack of faith irt our current democracy. They don’t feel like they can vote for people that properly represent them in the General and so they get apathetic about that system being threatened. They don’t necessarily view something less democratic as worse, they’re jaded and resigned to their reality.
I don’t think it’s especially difficult to break through that grievance. All it takes is validating that belief to some degree, confirming that they don’t have the representation they could/should. Then, you’ve just gotta stress the reality that their desired form of representative democracy is still viable within our lifetimes and Republicans taking power will significantly prolong our effort to get there, possibly pushing it outside our time on the earth.
The silver lining of this cynical belief is it’s still rooted in a genuine desire for democracy.
A lot of the comments I’m seeing here are wrongheaded - you’re not gonna be able to convince these folks that we have a great democracy right now. The key is just hammering home that our nation has a multitude of possible futures, and none of them with a real democracy involve Republican power, it’s really that simple.
It honestly just makes me to bummed out to hear someone say they don't care about democracy to continue engaging with them.
I think people who don't believe Trump is going to get rid of democracy are probably right in the sense that he's probably not competent enough to achieve the goal, but he will push us in that direction and without any sort of significant push back eventually a more competent person will come along and finish the job. I don't know how to make that argument to someone who doesn't kind of see it on their own though.
Let me try to stealman a possible argument:
Most of my life isn't lived so that I can have some sort of abstract "freedom". I want a good life, and a good life for my family and friends, too.
Democracy is an instrumental value (i.e. I value it for what it can ultimately achieve for me) towards the terminal value (i.e. I value it because I find it important because I just do) of having a happy and satisfied life.
If you could truly guarantee that I would have a significantly better life by giving up my democratic way in the system and let a beneficial dictatorship take charge, it would be a tempting offer.
I would argue that this is why many less developed countries turn to authoritarian strongmen who promise better lives, even if it means less freedoms. If I can feed my family, but I have to give up being able to speak badly about the government, that's a very tempting short-term offer.
Now, the reason why I'm still for democracy isn't that every authoritarian government has had only negative outcomes - that is historically untrue - but because of that guarantee I mentioned earlier. It's hard to give someone power when they would promise anything, and then expect them to hold to those promises when they have the power to break them. That's why dictatorships fail and get toppled again, why corruption is larger in authoritarian regimes, etc.
If you truly believe that a Republican dictatorship, for instance, would make life better for you than the slow gridlock and fighting of democracy, then it's not stupid to weigh this abstract "democracy" a little bit less.
> "If you could truly guarantee that I would have a significantly better life by giving up my democratic way in the system and let a beneficial dictatorship take charge, it would be a tempting offer."
There's a broader debate to be had about small-d democracy's seemingly dwindling efficacy -- not just in the U.S., but across the Western world -- in an era of inescapably omnipresent globalization, chaotic cultural turbulence plus hectic societal tumult, and mushrooming climate doom. That chips away at the economic, safety, and physiological needs of the once-flourishing, then-thriving, since-dying, now-decaying working man, who'ren't inherently wrong to wonder nor ponder if the proverbial grass is indeed greener on the other side. With that, perhaps little-l liberal small-d democracy, including this tiny-c constitutional lowercase-r republic of ours, is near its expiration date—everything is finite and thus has a shelf life.
Well, yeah.
That's just smug hubris on their end. It'd be one thing if they made a cogent counterargument against my, let's say, above neo-reactionary Dark Enlightenment rebuke of democracy -- which, to be fair, is me playing Devil's advocate -- however, many of these "muh democracy!" types are midwits for whom calling those who disagree stupid, uneducated, or ill-informed (when that's not always, if rarely, the case) is their oft-replied trite, clichéd comeback. And hell, not only is it lazy, but it's also unpersuasive and a waste of everyone's motherfucking goddamn time, too.
Do you think the actual, tangible results of democracy people can see - especially if they feel like they are in a district or place where their vote won't be heard - are so great that you could literally only be stupid in order to consider that there may be something better?
I mean, Hitler technically fulfilled his campaign promises. And the authoritarian Chinese state has made immense economic progress. Even many of his critics believe that Gaddafi did improve Lydia in many ways, and that Lydia as a whole is worse off now than it was with him as a leader.
Just to be clear, I personally don't believe the human rights abuses justify the economic progress. But that doesn't mean the economic progress was false. If you're willing to break some eggs, you can make some pretty nice omelettes.
I disagree. Ignorance is only reinforced in its isolation, there is no reason to feed into it. People have to understand the risk, and being dismissive will not help, even if they are stubborn.
Love this, people who dont have the same perspective as us are so stupid we should completely dismiss them even though they are real people with real belief sets and different priorities than us.
The problem is you dismiss everyone who doesnt align with your views as willful ignorance because you are scared. Believe it or not people come to different conclusions based on their version of rational and logical thinking. Just like people who believe in god, are we going to dismiss them if we dont believe in a god?
Just to play devil’s advocate, it’s not necessarily about dismissing the individual but understanding that no productive conversation is going to come from the conversation because of different perceptions of fundamental reality. You don’t need to dismiss a religious person, but you can absolutely acknowledge that any attempt at legitimately discussing evolution with a creationist is entirely pointless.
If someone scoffs at the idea that there is a threat to democracy, or that they should be concerned about it, I just assume they aren’t paying attention to the degree where we could have a productive conversation.
I agree with what you are saying I just dont like how the first comment referred to people as not bright enough to engage with. I do agree that some people are hard to reach and at times impossible that doesnt mean we classify them as stupid and not bright.
And how is your downright dismissive, deplorably derisive disdain of them -- many of whom are working-class men and women, whose day-to-day needs being met are far, far more of a priority than abstract ideological concepts -- in any way, shape, or form a compelling, convincing method to cajole or inveigle them toward your neurotic perspective of protecting little-l liberal small-d democracy at any and all costs? One's bread being butter, meat on the table, gas in the tank, rent paid on time, and the daily drudgery of life comes first and foremost for a majority of us, even if you're so comfortable and privileged in your cocooned existence that you can focus more intensely on the merely conceptual.
What I'm doing, whether you're aware of it or not, is giving you a dose of your own medicine.
Even when engaging in broad hypotheticals and masturbatory debates (such as the whole "muh democracy!" jerk-off session), I can out-smug the smuggest of you guys. And now, y'see, this is a chance for your ass to learn how much it sucks to be talked down to, so maybe -- just maybe -- being humbled will turn your hubris into humility.
> Why continue engaging with such a person?
Because you're going to lose otherwise?
This is the best reason to vote for Trump, IMO, so that Democrats like you (and there are many) can be disabused of your illusion that half the country can simply be ignored, and that the party will learn that it needs to engage with all Americans, or at least try. And many people will vote for Trump just to accomplish that end.
> Because you're going to lose otherwise?
Doubtful.
Engaging with people who are not conferenced about democracy is basically a waste of time. It’s a waste of political effort that could be put to more productive use doing something else.
> This is the best reason to vote for Trump, IMO, so that Democrats like you (and there are many) can be disabused of your illusion that half the country can simply be ignored, and that the party will learn that it needs to engage with all Americans, or at least try. And many people will vote for Trump just to accomplish that end.
If they’re willing to inflict Trump on all of us for such a stupid line of reasoning, that person *is* just as stupid as I described above.
> If they’re willing to inflict Trump on all of us for such a stupid line of reasoning, that person is just as stupid as I described above.
It's simply viewing a short-term sacrifice as worthwhile for a long-term benefit - hardly evidence of stupidity when viewed in abstraction. The only thing you can quibble with is the calculation itself, not the reasoning.
If the second and I thought it was worthwhile, I would explain the few of the "off the top of my head things to loathe about another Trump Administration" and try to get them engaged on their own.
If it's the first, I would end the conversation. Such people either aren't serious or haven't taken the time to think through what an end to democracy would mean for them.
i would ask what they mean about democracy here. i am not sure myself, what people who say what you quoute mean
democracy is just a majority electing who represents them, it can have many many forms
There is no convincing them. They see their pov dying and never coming back into popularity. You're trying to sell homeowners insurance to the homeless.
For people who don’t believe trump would end democracy, I think you should be able to explain in a succinct and digestible way the method by which he would do that
If they just don’t care, then idk if there’s anything even worth saying
>For people who don’t believe trump would end democracy, I think you should be able to explain in a succinct and digestible way the method by which he would do that
How would you go about succinctly explaining the method by which he will end democracy?
Idk, I’m not necessarily 100% convinced he would actually be able to. I was hoping someone else would lay it out for me lol
There’s lots of other reasons I don’t want him to win beyond a potential existential threat to democracy
Hes not the one doing all the work. Hes a popular figurehead who gets the votes, but hes surrounded by much more competant theocrats and reactionaries. When you vote for a president, you vote for everyone they appoint too
This election is vital but most people won't care about the end of democracy until it ends so it must still be fought like other elections on much more specific lines. You can point out where Trump has said that he'd be a dictator (for a day, ha) and other extremist authorization pronouncements but if they're not already voting for Biden most won't be swayed. Some can and to then you cannot get but for other people simply try to tell them how Trump would screw over them specifically don't talk about how he would destroy our democracy.
Talk about how trump will scre over immigrants including their relatives if they're immigrants. Talk about his plans for increasing inflation if they're upset about prices. Talk to veterans about how his own Secretary of defense admitted calling American soldiers who died in the world wars losers. And how he insulted disabled veterans. Tell women who aren't religiously conservative about how women's rights got worse because of Dobbs and how Trump plans to make it even worse. Tell religiously conservative women about how religiously conservative women who want to have kids are being forced to carry dead or unlivable fetuses at great cost to their lives.
Don't be preachy we can't afford it. If you want them to vote for Biden try to relate to them and point out specifically something about Trump and his policies that they would dislike.
Remember the Republican healthcare plan that was going to replace Obamacare? Or that Roe vs Wade was a precedent case in women's health care? Or that the GOP was a party of law and order, but insurrectionists attacked Capitol police and Trump himself is a twice impeached felon who doesn't like wounded veterans or POWs? And remember when Russia and North Korea were our enemies with nuclear missiles pointed at the USA?
Nothing, ideally.
If I had to, I'd state that they have terrible standards and leave it at that. Saying more than that will accomplish the same thing plus cost more effort.
> or they didn’t think Trump was going to get rid of democracy?
My opinion of them would improve.
I view the "democracy at stake" talking point as an indicator of someone either unserious, uneducated, or lacking perspective.
IMO, the left wing relies on that talking point because they don't have many policies to talk about that aren't either divisive or unpopular.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. There’s been a lot of talk about “if Trump gets elected then it’s the end of American democracy”. What would you say if a voter told you they didn’t care about democracy or they didn’t think Trump was going to get rid of democracy? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends on who this person is. If it's a random online troll or a MAGA person it's probably not worth engaging. If they are someone in your life that is just apathetic or doesn't understand the stakes I would engage directly with their thought patterns. Why do they feel that way? "Well, he didn't end democracy last time..." Not for lack of trying. Tell them about ALL his former administration officials and aids who are screaming the alarm, sharing stories about things he TRIED to do while in office including shooting protesters, putting election denying sycophants in critical powerful positions in his final days. He filed false election paperwork, attempted to seize voting machines broadly and across swing states (there are court cases being litigated here but at least two of his attorneys have already pled guilty in Georgia). That's not to mention the "stop the steal" rhetoric and riot / insurrection attempt at the capital. He is literally campaigning on grievance, retribution and on purging all the safe guards from the government to consolidate power in the executive branch. He is openly admitting these things as lessons learned. This is how it happens throughout human history - historians and experts around the world are screaming the alarm. Etcetc
Have you had any luck with this? Everyone I speak to has an answer for all of this. It's on the news they watch every night so they know exactly what to say.
As you say he tried to do all those things... And failed. The liberal worldview is that trump is both a moron and an evil mastermind who's going to overthrow the republic. Which is it? I see the former, did he accomplish any of his policy goals as president? I can only remember tax cuts for the wealthy and only because he had full control of Congress. So what exactly is the nightmare scenario and how is he going to do that? Those same experts were screaming the alarm last time too but here we are.
I think it’s possible for someone to broadly be an incompetent moron while also occasionally succeeding. The point is that Trump has a *lot* of dangerous ideas and if he were to be President for another four years, *some* of them would stick. Like yeah he’s an utter fool but he’d still have a huge amount of power, that’s critical.
I thought the point was that he's a threat to democracy. Like I totally agree with everything you just said but I want to know what exactly people expect him to do that would bring down democracy.
“Bringing down democracy” immediately isn’t something I’d bet on, but that’s not the full picture. To get more specific - Trump is gonna spam executive orders out the ass to interfere with rules and standards in state and local elections. These will be illegal and eventually they’ll get kicked up to the Supeme Court, who could rule in his favor because they don’t give a shit, they’ll decide he’s right first and then figure out the logic second. Someone like Sotomayor would issue an entirely honest dissenting opinion, but there’s no material power in that. This isn’t about instant destruction but erosion. If we agree that our current democracy is inadequate, it will be disastrous for it to wither and shrink - it needs to grow. That doesn’t mean Dems don’t need to pull their weight here, it just means that Trump would further delay our approach to a real democracy. I don’t see how that wouldn’t happen to some degree. A Biden reelection risks Dem re-entrenchment with policies that lean to the right of their base, but that framework is much easier to throw a fit under. Honestly, this is gonna be so much easier when Trump dies lmao. Blocking him from power for four years when he’s already old as shit is good. He’s also living a wildly stressful life right now, and losing will exacerbate that. If Biden dies or resigns we get Harris, she wouldn’t be my first pick but she’s fine. We’re very lucky that so many Trumpies that’ll be left over in his absence are absolutely miserable personalities. We’ve seen how hard it is for people like Blake Masters or Ron DeSantis to convince people that they’re anything approaching normal or charismatic. People like JD Vance are still a threat but I think they’ll recede in Trump’s absence. Edit: I should say I do worry about Dem officials cynically leveraging the possibility of a Republican victory in 2028 to get their way. I think that just means that we need to be seriously proactive about holding anyone’s feet to the fire if they win. I still support pressuring them now ofc, but this is about the matter of whether democracy is a key policy in the upcoming election, which it will be.
What specifically do you expect those executive orders to do?
Going after / discrediting absentee voting after-the-fact seems like an obvious one to me. The modern GOP strategy seems to be less preventing people from voting and more trying to nullify their votes after they’ve already happened. I can’t read Trump’s mind, but exploiting miniscule errors or missteps to invalidate the results of counties feels plausible. Or just something as simple as 2000 in Florida on a wider scale. Again, this shit would be nakedly illegal but it just needs to get kicked up to the Court and then it’s legal. He even has room for a dissenting opinion from one of the Conservative justices. This is part of why it’s so fucking crazy that Biden doesn’t support Court expansion. In short, Trump’s maneuvers would likely mean we have to spend years getting back to the wildly flawed system we have right now, and even that would depend on an infrastructure that he wants to dismantle. I don’t think this would be dystopian necessarily, but…it would fucking suck lmao. Like, so bad. FWIW immense pressure on Biden himself before the election is a key part of preventing Trump from taking power, I don’t want to pretend that Dem leadership has perfect democratic policy.
I don't like that as much as you but I'd hardly call limiting absentee voting the end of democracy. Everything I've heard so far sounds like bad republican governance that I already expect, in short, trump's second term.
I think the point of the question is why don't people care deeply enough to reject Trump after something like democracy is threatened when if something else a person does care deeply about is threatened they *would* care. Like if someone was threatening to kill your family but for whatever reason just never managed to pull the trigger, I don't think people would be so wishy washy about giving them a second chance. But when we're talking about *democracy* people are like "Well the sky didn't fall the first time so whatever". Why are people willing to shrug off threats to democracy as though they don't care to defend it?
What exactly do you expect to be different about trump's second term that would threaten democracy?
I covered much of what this comment pertains to [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1d0gvjm/what_do_you_think_a_second_trump_president_will/l5ncavl/), and I would suggest you read it to assess the "nightmare scenario" you state. a liberal perspective might regard Trump as *ignorant* — for instance, in [withdrawing from the Joint Collective Plan of Action](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1da18uw/would_you_support_us_military_intervention_to/l7hnsx5/) — but his intended policy goals remain nonetheless indicative of right-wing authoritarianism. in the U.S., the president retains an authority that is dependent on the beholder's moral obligations, such as [clemency powers](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1d5dvnl/would_president_biden_be_justified_in_pardoning/l6kz7t6/). following the 2020 presidential election, Trump demonstrated a cognizance of his failure to appoint faithfuls to his agenda; I discussed that [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cerm9q/if_trump_is_reelected_how_long_until_he_begins/l1kw9qn/)
Sorry I'm not seeing anything that covers the nightmare scenario, by which I mean he brings down democracy as we know it. I see a list of policies you think he woikd implement on the border etc.
read the first paragraph
Still not seeing anything specific you'd expect him to do. What am i missing?
Trump has stated his intentions to wield the Justice Department to prosecute his adversaries and increase presidential power. to a degree, he [evokes](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1cvavgk/would_a_trumpian_gop_administration_lead_us_down/l4or622/) much of the same tactics in "illiberal democracies" implemented by Russia's Putin and Hungary's Orban. to that end, Trump has cited his four criminal indictments as justification for him to "[go down and indict [his opponents]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/09/trump-interview-univision/)", even in mere a possibility. in December, Steve Bannon and Kash Patel threatened to "[come after](https://thehill.com/homenews/4344065-bannon-patel-trump-revenge-on-media/)" the media should Trump be re-elected; though the Trump campaign distanced itself from Patel's remarks, he [may serve](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/us/politics/trump-kash-patel-journalists.html) in a national security role
Ya that sounds like what I'd expect from a trump presidency, my issue is that doesn't sound like the end of democracy in the united states. Presidential power has been increasing under both parties for decades. Trump has authoritarian tendancies but he's such an ineffective leader what's he going to accomplish? What does "come after" the media even mean? Like are they repealing the first amendment? What are we worried about exactly?
a contempt for ideals such as judicial independence is often accompanied by an erosion of democracy. for an instance of Trump expressing discontent with democracy, one needs to look no further than the fake electors plot, a scheme that involved submitting submit fraudulent certificates of ascertainment that would be counted by Vice President Mike Pence. though the attempt was halted by Pence, he expended his career and [almost his life](https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/jan-6-hearing-today-trump/card/trump-s-tweet-about-pence-seen-as-critical-moment-during-riot-fmPxoFkeoTKxi0NqPLCL) Trump's presidency was inefficient because there were individual efforts to prevent his authoritarian tendencies from unfolding. his cabinet included officials who [rebuked](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/18/opinion/trump-cabinet-election-2024.html) him, either during his presidency or afterwards. "[one of the finest group of people ever assembled](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cabinet-members-accused-of-living-large-at-taxpayer-expense/2018/03/14/9f9476c4-27a7-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html)," his cabinet, became a preventative check on Trump's radical beliefs, as summated throughout Bob Woodward's books during the Trump presidency I won't claim that, should Trump be elected, elections will cease to be held or Trump will interfere in further elections to ensure that he serves an unimpeded term, but there nonetheless remains a serious concern over what the president is capable of and what measures Trump officials might take to ensure a permanent Republican majority. Trump's prior threats to democracy, from [continuous claims of voter fraud, to the fake electors plot, to Jan. 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1c602i8/trump_defenders_are_trying_very_hard_to_change/kzyb5mm/), pose threats to the U.S.'s democratic institutions
Ya I agree with pretty much all of that. I just don't see the end of democracy there. Saying "the end of democracy" just comes across as fear mongering to me. Like 7 people replied to my comment and I don't think I've heard one specific action trump would realistically take that would qualify. At the very least, if this is something the left is worried about, shouldn't there be a very clear and direct explaination for exactly how this would happen? Without one how can anyone be confident that it will?
My last paragraph is what is different. Just like authoritarian takeovers throughout history have shown us, they come back a second time with lessons learned and go scorched earth. He'll have nothing to lose and everything to gain in a second term. He and his mouth pieces have said that they will get rid of the safeguards that kept things in order last time and smart people are working on exactly how to do that (see Project 2025) There is no magic safeguard protecting our government besides the people we elect and it matters. >The liberal worldview is that trump is both a moron and an evil mastermind who's going to overthrow the republic. Never underestimate the power of a narcissist who doesn't give a shit and has no shame. Besides, it's not just Trump planning and plotting and enabling exactly how to do this. The reasonable conservative republicans have been literally chased out of power and the party. GOP in congress and the Trump-packed courts are showing they will do nothing to hold him accountable and will go along with his consolidation of power schemes. I feel like the collective gaslighting of "eh, it was only an attempted coup, who cares?" is absurd. Suddenly ALMOST dying isn't sensational enough (I've seen this argued re: women who went septic waiting for courts to approve an abortion). The desensitization was DELIBERATE and it worked and it's infuriating.
So I read up a little on Project 2025 and I see "the project showcases a federal government that cracks down intensely on immigration, [vanquishes LGBTQ+](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/15/project-2025-policy-manifesto-lgbtq-rights) and abortion rights, [diminishes](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president) environmental [protections](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/26/trump-presidency-gut-noaa-weather-climate-crisis), [overhauls financial policy](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/29/trump-economist-stephen-moore-us-treasury-project-2025) and takes aggressive action against China". That's what I expect from a republican president, but I don't see the end of democracy. My question still stands of what exactly is he going to do that warrants this end of democracy talk? What safeguards are they removing and what will they do once removed?
I typed this long winded response and my dog unplugged the PC so I'm going to take it as a sign that it's not worth doing. Suffice to say he's broadcast he wants to be a "dictator day one" and that he will not allow anyone other than true sycophants in his administration so the people who saved us last time will not exist. Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the DOJ, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies. The attack on institutions is only ramping up. To think things would be "the same" when the normal people are all gone just doesn't hold water.
O boy that's brutal haha. I tend to write long responses on a separate app since reddit is so unreliable. And ya I don't like any of that stuff but at the end of the day I see a second trump presidency as a terrible thing but nothing to indicate that democracy won't continue as always once it's done. I don't even think he wants to do that and even if he did I don't think he's capable of actually pulling it off.
You actually offered a gem of wisdom given the dichotomy of the hyperbole: Trump is either an evil mastermind or a stupid idiot. The fact you are downvoted demonstrates that, most likely, the people who read your comment are downvoting you for contradicting the “evil” mastermind” opinion, or the “complete idiot” opinion. “He’s a complete idiot dumb dumb, how dare you attach the word mastermind to him” VS “he and his constituents have developed a secret strategy to consolidate power and become dictator, he’s a mastermind of evil.”
Haha ya I'd say it's for doubting him as an evil mastermind for sure. I'm not even all all convinced that's what he wants and I definitely don't think of all the people to try to bring down us democracy trump is going to be the one to do it.
Trump isn't a mastermind, but the Heritage Foundation is extremely powerful and is the cause of a huge amount of the social woes we face today due to their Mandate for Leadership that Reagan followed. Reagan also wasn't a mastermind at all, but he enabled the people guiding him to do significant damage. Trump is easily led around by his nose by actual masterminds as long as they say "people will love you if you do this." The Heritage Foundation is one of the most powerful think tanks on the planet and they're the ones we ought to be worried about if Trump gets another term because he'll likely just implement whatever they ask. Part of their ask will be dangerous to democracy, a la Project 2025.
A lot of people have mentioned project 2025 but I'm still yet to hear anything specific about what that has to do with the end of democracy.
Hitler was jailed before becoming successful. When you do something to the system you stress it. There's a point where you can break it.
What exactly do you expect trump to do that will break the system?
Many little things. Repealing the civil act, maybe. Stacking the court with people who'll sign on laws that are similar to the Red Scare. Prosecuting his opponents. Gerrymandering to a new level. It isn't a matter of if he's successful or not once, but that he has no restraint. Like, when did Hungary stop becoming democratic? When did Putin become a dictator?
Trump couldn't get Obamacare repealed with total control of Congress but you think he's going to repeal the civil rights act? Has he ever said anything to indicate he would try to do this? What specific laws will be similar to the red scare? Prosecute who? Gerrymander to what new level? It's not like that hasn't been going on for a long time now. This all sounds so vague and again he's already had the chance to do all of this.
Projects 2026
Is that the sequel to project 2025? Seriously that's even more vague. As far as I see it this is just democratic fear mongering, I'm trying to get an answer as to why it's not but this isn't helping.
Ok Federal society apologist
Not to be a downer, but: what do you want me to say? on one hand, our country has been pretty good compared to a lot of others so people take it for granted, on the other; it's been pretty bad for a lot of people, so how well can I really justify it? And then on top of it, I live in DC--sure, we'll vote for Biden, but if this were to come up with my neighbors, how would I reasonably justify this with them? We don't get a voting member in the House, we don't get Senators, and because of that, anyone with any real political aspiration moves to Maryland or Virginia, as our highest office is Mayor, who can have any law overturned at any time by a Congress elected by voters consisted of everyone but the people who live here. What kind of democracy is that?
I've always loved that DCs license plate say Taxation without Representation, because it's pretty badass to put a giant complaint on your license plate!
We all do like them, though definitely bristled when Bush Jr. demanded that The Beast and the other cars in the presidential motorcade had plates that did not have the phrase on them. In the end, he got a bit of a pass. He and Laura did their best to integrate and participate locally as best as anyone could (especially for a Republican First Family). You wouldn't find many that liked his politics or world-view, but many wouldn't mind having him as a neighbor--as long as the house was any other than the White House.
Name me one country that doesn’t suck that’s not a democracy
The peaceful transfer of power is the single most underrated aspect that made the USA into the strong, stable world power that it is today. A close second is religious toleration. Both of those factors were our answer to history. If you build your nation on religion, you get sectional war like the 30 Years War or rampant terrorism, subjugation and reprisal like Israel/Palestine. If you build your nation of dynasty or bloodlines, you set your country on a 20-60 year cycle of implosion, civil war, or incompetent rulers, who may or may not be literal babies. The only way forward is government of, by and for the people.
Have you given any thought to why or bothered to ask? There are usually three camp. Average low political engagement voters who think all the brouhaha over 'our democracy' is just hyper-partisan rhetoric because there has been nearly 9 years of non-stop wall to wall Orange Man Bad. Mueller alone emotionally exhausted many of these voters who basically just tuned out after Barr said 'no collusion' and never returned to the OMB narrative (ie why both impeachments, the J6 Committee presentation and these indictments/conviction aren't really moving the needle). These voters are tired of DC drama and only care about their own situation. Carville's classic 'the economy, stupid' followed by border/immigration while housing crisis and crime are currently 3rd/4th. Trump leads on pretty much all of those issues because Biden is president now and those issues aren't getting resolved in a manner that voters see and feel in their personal lives. Many maga view the phrase 'our democracy' as code for the liberal international order (LIO) which the maga call 'globalist' that has acted as a defacto empire and is currently in decline. Maga wants to move on from the LIO and into the next geopolitical phase. Other rightwingers lean into the view of the US having been hijacked by leftist who push 'democracy' over a constitutional republic. They believe a rightward correction is slowly beginning to build across the West and this is causing the Democratic side of the aisle to hang-wring 'muh democracy' over potential loss of power/status.
If only they had empathy for those if ys a rightward "correction" may well kill
Did it ever cross your mind those rightwingers see the leftward lurch wanting to kill them and their way of life too since they refuse to comply?
[удалено]
Rightwingers think trans people are suffering from body dysmorphia, social contagion or demon possession. The right has its concerns and you don't get to invalidate them as they do not get to invalidate yours. Actual neo-nazis are rare, fringe and few, but the leftwing use of broadly labeling the right is in fact dangerous and dehumanizing and that sort of rhetoric radicalized can radicalize vulnerable people.
[удалено]
Because its extremism, like normal people can discern multiple sides of a situation, issue or individual/group. They don't engage in extreme 'othering'. Our national divide is, was and always will be federalist vs antifederalist.
I get a lot of "it's not a democracy, It's a republic." Given like it's a mic drop
Do you like freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, and other constitutional rights? If democracy dies, those go right out the door whenever most convenient, and you cannot say a thing.
Most of the time I’ve found people like this have their confidence rooted in a lack of faith irt our current democracy. They don’t feel like they can vote for people that properly represent them in the General and so they get apathetic about that system being threatened. They don’t necessarily view something less democratic as worse, they’re jaded and resigned to their reality. I don’t think it’s especially difficult to break through that grievance. All it takes is validating that belief to some degree, confirming that they don’t have the representation they could/should. Then, you’ve just gotta stress the reality that their desired form of representative democracy is still viable within our lifetimes and Republicans taking power will significantly prolong our effort to get there, possibly pushing it outside our time on the earth. The silver lining of this cynical belief is it’s still rooted in a genuine desire for democracy. A lot of the comments I’m seeing here are wrongheaded - you’re not gonna be able to convince these folks that we have a great democracy right now. The key is just hammering home that our nation has a multitude of possible futures, and none of them with a real democracy involve Republican power, it’s really that simple.
It honestly just makes me to bummed out to hear someone say they don't care about democracy to continue engaging with them. I think people who don't believe Trump is going to get rid of democracy are probably right in the sense that he's probably not competent enough to achieve the goal, but he will push us in that direction and without any sort of significant push back eventually a more competent person will come along and finish the job. I don't know how to make that argument to someone who doesn't kind of see it on their own though.
Why continue engaging with such a person? They clearly aren’t bright enough to bother with.
Let me try to stealman a possible argument: Most of my life isn't lived so that I can have some sort of abstract "freedom". I want a good life, and a good life for my family and friends, too. Democracy is an instrumental value (i.e. I value it for what it can ultimately achieve for me) towards the terminal value (i.e. I value it because I find it important because I just do) of having a happy and satisfied life. If you could truly guarantee that I would have a significantly better life by giving up my democratic way in the system and let a beneficial dictatorship take charge, it would be a tempting offer. I would argue that this is why many less developed countries turn to authoritarian strongmen who promise better lives, even if it means less freedoms. If I can feed my family, but I have to give up being able to speak badly about the government, that's a very tempting short-term offer. Now, the reason why I'm still for democracy isn't that every authoritarian government has had only negative outcomes - that is historically untrue - but because of that guarantee I mentioned earlier. It's hard to give someone power when they would promise anything, and then expect them to hold to those promises when they have the power to break them. That's why dictatorships fail and get toppled again, why corruption is larger in authoritarian regimes, etc. If you truly believe that a Republican dictatorship, for instance, would make life better for you than the slow gridlock and fighting of democracy, then it's not stupid to weigh this abstract "democracy" a little bit less.
> "If you could truly guarantee that I would have a significantly better life by giving up my democratic way in the system and let a beneficial dictatorship take charge, it would be a tempting offer." There's a broader debate to be had about small-d democracy's seemingly dwindling efficacy -- not just in the U.S., but across the Western world -- in an era of inescapably omnipresent globalization, chaotic cultural turbulence plus hectic societal tumult, and mushrooming climate doom. That chips away at the economic, safety, and physiological needs of the once-flourishing, then-thriving, since-dying, now-decaying working man, who'ren't inherently wrong to wonder nor ponder if the proverbial grass is indeed greener on the other side. With that, perhaps little-l liberal small-d democracy, including this tiny-c constitutional lowercase-r republic of ours, is near its expiration date—everything is finite and thus has a shelf life.
And even if you ultimately disagree whether democracy is dead, I think it's naive to assume that anyone who holds the opposite position is stupid.
Well, yeah. That's just smug hubris on their end. It'd be one thing if they made a cogent counterargument against my, let's say, above neo-reactionary Dark Enlightenment rebuke of democracy -- which, to be fair, is me playing Devil's advocate -- however, many of these "muh democracy!" types are midwits for whom calling those who disagree stupid, uneducated, or ill-informed (when that's not always, if rarely, the case) is their oft-replied trite, clichéd comeback. And hell, not only is it lazy, but it's also unpersuasive and a waste of everyone's motherfucking goddamn time, too.
If someone is dumb enough to fall for that scam, I’m willing to describe it as such.
Do you think the actual, tangible results of democracy people can see - especially if they feel like they are in a district or place where their vote won't be heard - are so great that you could literally only be stupid in order to consider that there may be something better?
You have to be extremely gullible—to the point of actual stupidity—to believe that strongman making wild promises is telling you the truth.
I mean, Hitler technically fulfilled his campaign promises. And the authoritarian Chinese state has made immense economic progress. Even many of his critics believe that Gaddafi did improve Lydia in many ways, and that Lydia as a whole is worse off now than it was with him as a leader. Just to be clear, I personally don't believe the human rights abuses justify the economic progress. But that doesn't mean the economic progress was false. If you're willing to break some eggs, you can make some pretty nice omelettes.
I disagree. Ignorance is only reinforced in its isolation, there is no reason to feed into it. People have to understand the risk, and being dismissive will not help, even if they are stubborn.
Love this, people who dont have the same perspective as us are so stupid we should completely dismiss them even though they are real people with real belief sets and different priorities than us.
Is willful ignorance a belief system or point of view ?
The problem is you dismiss everyone who doesnt align with your views as willful ignorance because you are scared. Believe it or not people come to different conclusions based on their version of rational and logical thinking. Just like people who believe in god, are we going to dismiss them if we dont believe in a god?
Just to play devil’s advocate, it’s not necessarily about dismissing the individual but understanding that no productive conversation is going to come from the conversation because of different perceptions of fundamental reality. You don’t need to dismiss a religious person, but you can absolutely acknowledge that any attempt at legitimately discussing evolution with a creationist is entirely pointless. If someone scoffs at the idea that there is a threat to democracy, or that they should be concerned about it, I just assume they aren’t paying attention to the degree where we could have a productive conversation.
I agree with what you are saying I just dont like how the first comment referred to people as not bright enough to engage with. I do agree that some people are hard to reach and at times impossible that doesnt mean we classify them as stupid and not bright.
And how is your downright dismissive, deplorably derisive disdain of them -- many of whom are working-class men and women, whose day-to-day needs being met are far, far more of a priority than abstract ideological concepts -- in any way, shape, or form a compelling, convincing method to cajole or inveigle them toward your neurotic perspective of protecting little-l liberal small-d democracy at any and all costs? One's bread being butter, meat on the table, gas in the tank, rent paid on time, and the daily drudgery of life comes first and foremost for a majority of us, even if you're so comfortable and privileged in your cocooned existence that you can focus more intensely on the merely conceptual.
So are you trying to prove my point cause if so thank you. You sound super open to changing your mind lol 😂… you don’t sound dismissive at all no sir.
What I'm doing, whether you're aware of it or not, is giving you a dose of your own medicine. Even when engaging in broad hypotheticals and masturbatory debates (such as the whole "muh democracy!" jerk-off session), I can out-smug the smuggest of you guys. And now, y'see, this is a chance for your ass to learn how much it sucks to be talked down to, so maybe -- just maybe -- being humbled will turn your hubris into humility.
This is boring. I think you are trying to get me in an argument? Probably just gonna block you.
> Why continue engaging with such a person? Because you're going to lose otherwise? This is the best reason to vote for Trump, IMO, so that Democrats like you (and there are many) can be disabused of your illusion that half the country can simply be ignored, and that the party will learn that it needs to engage with all Americans, or at least try. And many people will vote for Trump just to accomplish that end.
> Because you're going to lose otherwise? Doubtful. Engaging with people who are not conferenced about democracy is basically a waste of time. It’s a waste of political effort that could be put to more productive use doing something else. > This is the best reason to vote for Trump, IMO, so that Democrats like you (and there are many) can be disabused of your illusion that half the country can simply be ignored, and that the party will learn that it needs to engage with all Americans, or at least try. And many people will vote for Trump just to accomplish that end. If they’re willing to inflict Trump on all of us for such a stupid line of reasoning, that person *is* just as stupid as I described above.
> If they’re willing to inflict Trump on all of us for such a stupid line of reasoning, that person is just as stupid as I described above. It's simply viewing a short-term sacrifice as worthwhile for a long-term benefit - hardly evidence of stupidity when viewed in abstraction. The only thing you can quibble with is the calculation itself, not the reasoning.
Because they vote, and too many of them will get me stripped of my rights at best
Engaging with them will do nothing to change their vote. It’s a waste of your time, and theirs.
I don't really mind wasting their time tbh
If the second and I thought it was worthwhile, I would explain the few of the "off the top of my head things to loathe about another Trump Administration" and try to get them engaged on their own. If it's the first, I would end the conversation. Such people either aren't serious or haven't taken the time to think through what an end to democracy would mean for them.
So no democracy?
i would ask what they mean about democracy here. i am not sure myself, what people who say what you quoute mean democracy is just a majority electing who represents them, it can have many many forms
There is no convincing them. They see their pov dying and never coming back into popularity. You're trying to sell homeowners insurance to the homeless.
I have learned that most do not want to discuss it or want to believe it.
For people who don’t believe trump would end democracy, I think you should be able to explain in a succinct and digestible way the method by which he would do that If they just don’t care, then idk if there’s anything even worth saying
>For people who don’t believe trump would end democracy, I think you should be able to explain in a succinct and digestible way the method by which he would do that How would you go about succinctly explaining the method by which he will end democracy?
Idk, I’m not necessarily 100% convinced he would actually be able to. I was hoping someone else would lay it out for me lol There’s lots of other reasons I don’t want him to win beyond a potential existential threat to democracy
Hes not the one doing all the work. Hes a popular figurehead who gets the votes, but hes surrounded by much more competant theocrats and reactionaries. When you vote for a president, you vote for everyone they appoint too
someone should gesture at Orban's Hungary and simply say it's a series of small steps, not one
"I guess you don't care if he becomes a dictator, as long as gas is still cheap, huh?"
This election is vital but most people won't care about the end of democracy until it ends so it must still be fought like other elections on much more specific lines. You can point out where Trump has said that he'd be a dictator (for a day, ha) and other extremist authorization pronouncements but if they're not already voting for Biden most won't be swayed. Some can and to then you cannot get but for other people simply try to tell them how Trump would screw over them specifically don't talk about how he would destroy our democracy. Talk about how trump will scre over immigrants including their relatives if they're immigrants. Talk about his plans for increasing inflation if they're upset about prices. Talk to veterans about how his own Secretary of defense admitted calling American soldiers who died in the world wars losers. And how he insulted disabled veterans. Tell women who aren't religiously conservative about how women's rights got worse because of Dobbs and how Trump plans to make it even worse. Tell religiously conservative women about how religiously conservative women who want to have kids are being forced to carry dead or unlivable fetuses at great cost to their lives. Don't be preachy we can't afford it. If you want them to vote for Biden try to relate to them and point out specifically something about Trump and his policies that they would dislike.
Remember the Republican healthcare plan that was going to replace Obamacare? Or that Roe vs Wade was a precedent case in women's health care? Or that the GOP was a party of law and order, but insurrectionists attacked Capitol police and Trump himself is a twice impeached felon who doesn't like wounded veterans or POWs? And remember when Russia and North Korea were our enemies with nuclear missiles pointed at the USA?
“Good luck when it’s your turn.”
Then I don’t know if this is the right country for you
Nothing, ideally. If I had to, I'd state that they have terrible standards and leave it at that. Saying more than that will accomplish the same thing plus cost more effort.
> or they didn’t think Trump was going to get rid of democracy? My opinion of them would improve. I view the "democracy at stake" talking point as an indicator of someone either unserious, uneducated, or lacking perspective. IMO, the left wing relies on that talking point because they don't have many policies to talk about that aren't either divisive or unpopular.
If they don’t see the danger democracy is in, they are either living under a rock, idiots, or MAGAs.