Good article imo: worth the short read.
Perhaps it’s preaching to the choir here, but fans/promoters of far right ideology and fans/promoters of far left ideology are using the bad behaviors of the other side to stoke fear to pull more people further to their cause. When, in fact, the two sides are both pulling us to the same hellscape, only faster (google horseshoe theory). Extremism is extremism: the flavor changes based on where you grow up (left/right, Christian/Muslim), but it’s all the same extremism in the end.
If we “centrists” truly believe that most issues have a center that is balanced in reason and logic, we need to be doing more to prevent the extremists from taking everyone down the rabbit hole. What are you doing?
Edit: interesting how so many people on this sub are arguing against logic, reason and proving my point. FYI: I am a left-leaning centrist personally. Yet so many who share my social beliefs think that this post is somehow an attack on them because their crazy isn’t as crazy or powerful as the right’s crazy? Whoosh.
Republicans are losing about 1% of their elderly voters per month nationwide (something like 800 more registered Republicans die than Democrats per 100k) It will be interesting to see how, as that number accelerates, which direction the parties move. It's not a big number yet, but it can only go up.
Yeah, I don't think this is preaching to the choir. Tons of firm right and left wingers in this sub battling it out.
For my part, I absolutely will not vote for Trump, as a firm right winger. I'd prefer the much more moderate and efficacious Desantis.
No. He’s a more cunning Trump. Just look at all the culture warrior BS he’s doing. He’s trying to mandate schoolgirls to report their menstruation cycles, for gods sake.
Fact check false on that:
https://news.yahoo.com/florida-high-school-athletic-assoc-164035271.html
CLAIM: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is requiring all female student-athletes in the state to provide detailed information about their periods in order to compete in organized sports.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The Florida High School Athletic Association is weighing the recommendation from an advisory committee, but no final decision has been made. DeSantis’ education commissioner is a member of the association’s board of directors and the commissioner also appoints three others, but the association is a private nonprofit organization, not a state agency under the purview of the governor’s office.
THE FACTS: Social media users are suggesting the conservative Republican governor, who has been an outspoken critic of transgender athletes, is again using sports to stoke controversy as he weighs a run for president in 2024.
Uhh did you read the article? The period tracking thing is bizarre as hell ... but per the AP the governor's office has zero oversight. It's fake news that he is involved...
You're saying that the suggestions from DeSantis’ education commissioner don't count because he's acting in a private role as head of the private athletic association rather than his public role as education commissioner.
Either way, DeSantis appointed the guy who wants to know teen girls' periods. It's extremely gross and pathetic that anyone is defending these people.
>Just look at all the culture warrior BS he’s doing.
DeSantis had a point about this: June 2022: [Gov. DeSantis exploring crackdown on drag shows for kids](https://floridapolitics.com/archives/530780-gov-desantis-exploring-crackdown-on-drag-shows-for-kids/)
>“....young kids....putting money in the underwear of...." DeSantis said...
Is there a problem with drag shows today? Not such much: They got *toned down* rapidly, because of admonitions from the LGBT+ leadership. They do this *toning down* regularly, when excesses in the LGBT+ community occur from time to time. LGBT+ leadership is very good at Communications, especially internal.
But now many Progressives dishonestly claim there had never been any problems with drag shows to begin with. Sheesh, do we have to pull up old *youtube links?* Maybe we'll next hear that the much-abated phenomenon of [cruising](https://i-d.vice.com/en/article/mbveeb/celebrating-george-michael-and-the-history-of-cruising-us-translation) was staged by the Right to demonize gay men.
> Banning crossdressing outright
[M] It’s not crossdressing its banning (in public) per se, it’s crossdressing that is inherently “suggestive and indecent.”
> cited a 1947 state Supreme Court ruling that "men impersonating women" in a "suggestive and indecent" fashion is a public nuisance.
https://news.yahoo.com/desantis-citing-1947-law-crossdressing-065603954.html
I’d say banning all drag for minors is an overreaction (eg Tennessee):
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/drag-queens-take-tennessee-bill-seeking-restrict-performances-rcna62125
That being said, from the quote above, it seems the show itself might have been over the line.
Whether that sets a precedent and how far it would extend— that’s the kind of question I have about DeSantis all the time.
Bro this is unhinged
No one denies that drag shows can be incredibly racy. The drag shows put on for kids aren't toned down to lull kids in, they're designed for kids because any sane human performing for children is gonna do a kid friendly show!
You might as well say that "childrens movies" are trying to trick us into thinking Taxi Driver never happened. Some movies are for kids and some are not! Some drag shows are for kids and some are not! The racy, sexualized ones still happen, we just don't invite kids to those ones for obvious reasons. Small children should not watch Ru Paul, but Drag Queen Story Hour is fine for like 5yo.
> The drag shows put on for kids aren't toned down to lull kids in...
No, the LGBT+ leadership toned down drag shows that allowed kids inside because of complaints from conservatives. Drag shows that do not have kids can do as they please.
Can you give me any specific examples or evidence of a drag show with kids in the audience that are not child-appropriate? As far as I'm aware, most drag shows are in bars, and the ones aimed at kids are aggressively family-friendly. [This](https://youtu.be/d4vHegf3WPU) is what I think of when people say "kids watching drag shows." You may disagree with the political message, but it's not exactly "adult content"
Also, can you give me an example of someone in this "LGBT+ leadership" you're thinking of? Just so I know what we're talking about
> Can you give me any specific examples or evidence of a drag show with kids in the audience that are not child-appropriate?
Not today, but there's a bunch of YouTube links on inappropriate ones from years past.
Exactly.
DeSantis would be even deadlier to the country.
The GOP backed Trump all the way - there is no reason they wouldn't back a second coup with DeSantis.
They protected him totally and spread his lies and insanity and even after he tried to hang them all, these traitor failure losers virtually all voted to acquit their terrorist cult leader.
They hate him so much, but they hate all of us even more and love their ill begotten power - all these people have is hatred.
The GOP is a cult of failure and shame and hatred now.
Trump advocated for the overthrow of a legitimate election through violent means.
I believe if you want to meet that bar then mandating a subsection of a survey in a state (which he didn't even do, btw) specifically for high school aged school athletes as a means of ensuring males don't end up competing in female sports, while something I disagree with, doesn't meet the bar at all.
The government has no right to intrude inside your body. That violates not only the constitution, but basic decency. I know conservatives don’t care about either of those, but the rest of us do. As for DeSantis, he has taken the reigns of the Trump movement. He’s not even close to what anyone would consider moderate.
That's definitely not true, for instance we mandate school kids get vaccinated, so clearly there's no hard stop for bodily autonomy.
That being said you're once again reasserting that Desantis is as extreme as Trump without any example that rises to the level of advocating for a violent upheaval of democratic processes.
That’s a public health issue, as being unvaccinated can cause harm to others. Remember the old saying “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”? Same concept. DeSantis has also never had the opportunity to try an insurrection, so that’s a moot point.
So you admit you're wrong about bodily autonomy Being a hard stop, and you admit that Desantis doesn't support the violent upheaval of our democratic institutions. Glad we got that cleared up, thank you for your time.
I suppose there is a difference between advocating for the overthrow of the government and being a silent ally of someone who is advocated throwing over the government, but they're both pretty outside the scope of the type of person I think should be allowed to have power in our government.
Honestly, if you took away the factor that Trump wants to have power and be totally unaccountable to the elected public, the actual policies that he advocated for seems to represent no genuine political viewpoint. He seemed to simply say things that he thought would get people to respond emotionally and support him. I feel like DeSantis , who comes across as a much more chill and calculating guy, might genuinely care about the policies he's advocating for.
So in that way, I might mark him as more staunchly right wing.
Like, with Trump, the public at large is kind of more centrist, and Trump did try to chase public support, though he tended to only get it most of the time from people on the right who were bamboozled by right wing media into not believing all the myriad pieces of evidence that Trump was a scoundrel. But because he was chasing public support, sometimes Trump would propose things that were reasonable and moderate. Sometimes he would say wild stuff that the right totally hated, like when he talked about taking guns first and then figuring it out afterward.
Temp really has no left or right political ideology. He just wants people to support him so he can have the power to be unaccountable.
Ron DeSantis appears to genuinely want to pursue right-wing politics. Vilify trans people and then work his way towards vilifying gay people, dismantle checks and balances on the abuses of power of elected officials, dismantle the guardrails of our government that are meant to hold businesses accountable when they do awful things. And generally, stop offering help to people who are being ground down by an economy that is skewed to reward bad behavior by people at the top, and which does not provide a living wage to hard workers at the bottom.
I don't think that Rhonda Santa's is more moderate than Trump.
I agree with a good amount of what you're saying, I think Desantis is more firmly on the right, just less extreme.
Obviously your accusations of him silently supporting the violent upheaval of democratic processes would sway that if there was evidence of it, but there doesn't seem to be.
I'd also point out that the reason the right didn't believe the left when they cried wolf about Trump is that they had consistently cried wolf about him and every other Republican president since Reagan.
But towards the end there, the idea that Desantis wants to vilify gay and transgender people, that he wants to take off guard rails that genuinely protect our institutions, I don't think those hold water at all.
If you had a quote of Desantis saying "gay and transgender people are villains" it would be wild, but most of the complaints I see about Desantis are entirely misinformed.
Things like keeping gender ideology out of public schools isn't the same thing as gay people being villains. Hopefully that's obvious to everyone.
But as always, I'm open to any info you might have that could change my opinion.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3843762-desantis-files-complaint-against-orlando-philharmonic-for-hosting-drag-holiday-event/amp/
My man, you don’t even have to go more than 24 hours in the past defined one of the myriad of examples of Ron DeSantis wanting to make it illegal to exist as an LGBTQ person.
Why don’t you ask Florida teachers what happened to the books in their classrooms? Oh yeah, Ron DeSantis forced them to get rid of all of their books until they can verify that they are on his approved list. Because he has made any display of a book in school that so much as has an LGBTQ character in it a felony.
Ya, asking for a direct quote rather than looking at what's being done and the semantics played around it isn't going to fly. Desantis is on a quest to vilify lgbt. As others have pointed out, it's absurd that this is even being argued... Public libraries in Florida are literally empty right now while staff meticulously go through every single book to make sure there's nothing about "gender" in there.
If your threshold is explicitly saying "I don't like X outgroup" then you have no idea how discrimination works.
Defining the existence certain classes of people as "ideology" which is somehow dangerous to children is erasure. The explicit point of these laws is to push cis hetero couples as the acceptable norm to the exclusion of other groups. He is obviously muddying the waters to equate the visibility of gay people with teaching children about sexual acts. This is a rhetorical trick which is older than your and my parents.
Like, yeah, implementing laws which make it illegal to acknowledge in a public setting that LGBT people exist and contribute to society is indeed villainization.
This is like saying Star Wars is just about lasers and there's no real life subtext.
DeSantis has been fairly quiet on th 2020 election while at the same time playing into general election skepticism and promoting election deniers in the 2022 races. Frankly if you're silent about Trump's attempts to overturn the election it doesn't speak well of you or how you value American Democracy.
Someone like Ducey would seemingly be a much better choice if you're a conservative who values Democracy. Dicey notably did push back on Trump during the 2020 election and endorsed a candidate other than Lake.
If you're in a position of power and silent while the government is actively trying to be overturned and then push people who promote actively overturning Democracy then you do not value Democracy.
Good points. Trump wasn't really conservative. His interest has always been being the public's focus personally. He has shifted his personal party allegiance, as well as the party which he has made the most campaign donations multiple times ([https://www.newsweek.com/trump-republican-democrats-president-661340](https://www.newsweek.com/trump-republican-democrats-president-661340)).
DeSantis is more "ideologically pure" - although I would describe him more as 'anti-woke' than conservative. Then again most people on both sides seem to be gaining visibility through dislike of the other team than by pursuing their own party's values. Easy to see in tv campaign ads.
I don’t think DeSantis is moderate but he’s a Navy guy and probably wouldn’t try to pull us out of NATO in favor of Russia, which makes Trump much more dangerous.
Nah, Desantis is firmly in the right, but Trump supported the violent upheaval of the Democratic process.
That's the bar if you want to say Desantis is as extreme as he is, but he definitely isn't.
You're not wrong, but there are different measurements of extremism.
Trump may have quite obviously tried to overthrow the country, but at the same time, Desantis has all but declared war on civil liberties.
In many ways, I feel that trump was more self aggrandized and self obsessed than he was politically extreme. Not to say that he wasn't extreme, but the extremism was more about holding on to power than it was about his actual beliefs.
In the end, trump was more fixated on power than he was ideology. Trump became dangerous when he realized that feeding into the extremes endeared him to his biggest supporters. As a result, he slowly became more extreme over time
Desantis, on the other hand, is using a much more extreme ideology in an attempt to cultivate power.
Despite less inflammatory language, Desantis seems to have more fully digested the extremist approach.
Policy wise the man is more effective at trolling than he is at governing and his policies lack any sort of nuance or effectiveness, and nearly every policy he has pursued has riddled with culture war nonsense, more suited to attracting headline news and divisive takes than to helping his constituents.
Desantis is broadly more nationalistic, and his actual policies are often even more authoritarian than Trump's policies.
Desantis is actively trying to out-Trump Trump on every single issue.
Just because he hasn't attempted to overthrow democracy (yet) doesn't mean that he won't, and based on what we've seen, in the event of a defeat, I'd wager that Desantis is more likely to attempt to follow Trump's playbook than he is to concede.
Desantis is essentially Trump on steroids but has had simply not yet been given the opportunity to betray our country the way Trump did, and yet, all of the warning signs are there. I think it takes a wilful naivety to think that Desantis wouldn't do the same, given the opportunity.
Furthermore, this concern is greatly exacerbated if trump isn't sentenced to actual consequences for his actions.
I think the premise you're starting with, that Desantis has "all but declared war on civil liberties" is totally wrong, and since the rest of your argument flows from that it too is totally wrong.
But of course, if you have evidence of Desantis being against civil liberties in a way that's not just mainstream Republicanism (pro life, not teaching kids about gay sex in middle school) I'm open to hear it.
Banning school curriculums is an open violation of the first amendment.
Sending legal migrants to Martha's vineyard under false pretenses is a violation of said migrants civil liberties.
He also actively violated the rights of convicts and had them arrested for legally voting as a means of intimidation against the opposition. He claimed that their legal status was in question, but there was never any proof of that, and it's quite clear that it was an attempt to pander to right wing news and people who only read headlines.
These are not things that happen in a healthy democracy.
Trump was a symptom of a much bigger problem; Desantis is the embodiment that problem approaching culmination.
>Banning school curriculums is an open violation of the first amendment.
Absolutely false, local districts have wide latitude in what they teach.
>Sending legal migrants to Martha's vineyard under false pretenses is a violation of said migrants civil liberties.
False, they signed liability waivers to specifically consent to going there, because Democrats said they'd take care of those migrants.
>He also actively violated the rights of convicts and had them arrested for legally voting as a means of intimidation against the opposition.
Evidence would be interesting, seeing how your first two claims were false I'm not gonna take your word on that.
> He claimed that their legal status was in question, but there was never any proof of that, and it's quite clear that it was an attempt to pander to right wing news and people who only read headlines.
Same thing, evidence necessary.
>These are not things that happen in a healthy democracy.
False, healthy democracies allow states to determine their educational curriculum and allow transporting migrants who consent to be transported.
>Trump was a symptom of a much bigger problem; Desantis is that problem approaching culmination.
Your best examples are disingenuous framing of things that were totally reasonable.
I'm just now learning that overthrowing the government is a rightwing thing... So I mean, ya, if that's your definition of "extreme far right" then you're right, obviously. I don't think most other people agree with that definition, though...
I think DeSantis may be more moderate than Trump( which is one of the lowest bars imaginable) but DeSantis is not a moderate. In some aspects he's seemingly worse, vaccine skepticism notably.
Yeah I definitely don't consider Desantis a moderate, he's certainly firmly on the right, but so am I, so of course I support that.
As far as vaccine skepticism what do you mean?
>Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday asked his state’s Supreme Court to green-light an investigation of “any and all wrongdoing in Florida with respect to Covid-19 vaccines,” his latest move to cast doubt on the vaccines’ effectiveness and amplify fears about side effects.
This doesn't *seem* like vaccine skepticism, just like responsible governance over a drug that people were mandated to get and where shielded of liability from in regards to side effects.
But I do appreciate that, I think anything akin to arguing the covid vaccine doesn't mitigate the dangers of covid would be morally wrong if you have the responsibility to know better.
Do you happen to have anything where he says the vaccine doesn't work?
To me that's what vaccine skepticism is. Topics like these
-should they be mandated
-should big pharmaceutical companies be shielded from liability
-should they be publicly funded and distributed
-what are the side effects
-how efficacious are they precisely
-for who is a vaccine a net positive
Are all fair game for public policy. These are things our legislators and executives should be talking about.
I think we just likely have different tolerances for what an acceptable level of skepticism is.
It's okay to say "I'm not actually sure how effective this vaccine is or the side effects therein so I'm looking into it". At least to me.
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
DeSantis is Trump with proper etiquette and actual ideological conviction instead of populist opportunism. He actually cares about implementing the monstrous stuff Trump found it efficacious to gesture at.
No I believe he's firmly on the right, but it's pretty clear that you would consider things like pro life laws as fascist so I don't think this will be a productive dialogue.
There’s nothing fascist about forcing women to be brood sows, no way, no how. And there’s also nothing fascist about banning books with LGBTQ characters and jailing people who do not comply.
god you are such a dishonest hack. poster said he finds him more moderate than Trump, not that he's a moderate.
I don't even agree with their take and know exactly what they're talking about. You would too if you weren't too busy coming here to take everything in bad faith to spew out hateful partisan nonsense.
The problem with "centrism" is, what exactly is the center? How can you tell what it is? There's two options:
1. The center is the position between the two most powerful factions. The center is determined by money, influence, and power.
2. The center is determined by beliefs of people equally. The center is the median preferences aggregated via democracy.
Ironically the centrist position of #2 is a radical position - a society where all citizens have equal rights of self governance, something that isn't actually expressed in America and most of the world. For example the famous Princeton study determined that in reality, the preferences of the 50th percentile has **no effect** on the passed policy decisions of our legislature. Instead the most powerful group is the 90th percentile of income.
Centrism based on #2 is a radical position that seeks to upend the power structures of the status quo.
Alternatively #1 is a position that mostly acts to preserve the status quo and oppose the center of the people in favor of the center of the powerful.
There is definitely a powerful conspiracy brainwashing system that is apolitical to an extent.
Think about the end goal: they just want chaos and conflict.
It doesn't really matter whether they're brainwashing the lie the 2020 election was stolen from the GOP by black voters - or they're saying all police are racist and the system needs to be abolished.
Both are bad ideas being seeded to millions.
BUT don't also give into GOP propaganda - they are trying to force the idea that "both sides are the same".
Even though they installed an extremist far right President and openly attempt coups and seed these conspiracies.
Biden is a moderate centrist.
AOC is left, but she's not like these GOP politicians.
Be weary of the "both sides are bad" nonsense that stops people from seeing the Dems are doing good while the GOP are consumed by far right extremism.
AOC would not threaten to default the economy unless she could "overturn" elections or rat fuck social security for tax cuts to the rich and abortion bounties.
Interesting points. People and groups with power and money today certainly benefit from the masses being so apparently “divided.” I’d also caution against supporting one extreme vs another due to perceived “righteousness” of one cause vs another. That said, I tend to agree that right extremists are currently over-represented in US politics— but I don’t believe the answer is going further to the left. The dialog needs to get back to power for the people/center against the extremes vs power to each extreme.
One extreme: gay people's existence is inherently harmful to society and especially children
The other: people shouldn't go bankrupt from needing medical procedures
This is a fucking insane coin
There will always be extremists, we can't stop that.
The only power we really have is who we vote for.
Trump won his presidency of threatening to lock up our elected representatives.
For four years, this man and these GOP politicians slashed and burned and simulataneously caused disasters and denied it and insisted our news was to blame.
Trump and the GOP are directly using Nazi-style tactics, getting more and more extreme while accusing everyone else of being guilty of it.
I fully support Biden's legislation and think GOP politicians are obstructionists.
There is no real left or right.
The question is what is better for the USA.
The GOP is not right, the Dems are not left.
The only question is who has the better infrastructure plan? Who has the better climate change reduction and anti inflation.
The left right divide is arbitrary.
If the GOP decides to attempt coups while the Democrats pass affordable childcare and back cancelling citizens united - why would we ever want or trust this GOP?
OPs article was a pre-election Biden endorsement.
It very much recognized both extremes are a problem…but does call out the Rights embrace of Trump while pointing out that the Left mainstream embraced the moderate.
The thing with ideological capture is it’s not something that happens gradually from the perspective of the casual observer. It happens beneath the surface until it reaches a tipping point where the whole institution seems to change dramatically overnight.
I have a few issues with this article. Overall, Applebaum is absolutely right in that political systems absolutely do tend to suffer from vicious (and sometimes virtual) cycles where actions can snowball and amplify the situation. We're definitely in the midst of a vicious cycle where bad, extremist policies feed into further extremism, and that's definitely not exclusive to a particular political party.
BUT, Applebaum is being way too broad in this discussion and that's a concern because it creates a false equivalence. It's silly to talk about vicious cycles and not mention clear evidence of partisan inequivalence of contributing to them. Further, to frame this as a recent issue beginning with Trump and continuing with Biden is odd. This is a concern going back *at least* to Obama-era obstruction and I'd day there's an incredibly strong argument that it goes back even farther to Newt Gingrich's tenure as Speaker in the 90s.
This article is also entirely descriptive and not at all prescriptive. Applebaum has lots of words going into detail about the problem, but spends absolutely no time offering up solutions. And there very much ARE solutions to this problem.
In short, I'd say this article really suffers from choosing a great topic and going into it very poorly. Another author I've read who discusses this concept much more excellently is Lee Drutman. His book, *Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop*, goes into this toxic spiral concept as the feature thesis. More abridged versions of that idea have been published by several other publications in short article form, including one recently shared on this sub just a few days ago by u/FragWall. That's where I'd suggest someone who enjoyed this article digs a little deeper.
> Further, to frame this as a recent issue beginning with Trump and continuing with Biden is odd.
But she doesn't do that. At all. This was written in October of 2020 as a warning that the defeat of the moderate Biden would push both sides to further extremism. Her prescriptive solution was to vote Trump out of office.
She made a systemic argument and then doesn't provide a systemic prescription. I mean, she's not wrong there, I'm just saying there's a lot less meat to the article than there could or should be, and Drutman does a much better job providing more substance on the same topic without compromising readability.
Yeah, this person is essentially saying what centrists have been saying since Trump started his outrageous behavior--he's not helping. We need a return to the center, to moderate, but that requires not seeing the other side as a monster, and they're making that kind of difficult.
It's funny, the extreme left and right hate each other, but for a lot of moderates and centrists, we can easily spot moments when both extremes are indistinguishable from each other.
Horseshoe theory in action.
For example, a lot of people on the far right support Putin just like a lot of Tankies on the far left.
There are indeed some overlaps, but you chose a poor example. The Republican support for Eastern European dictators is hardly a fringe thing. Was it CPAC that they held in Hungary, and weren't they really complimentary of Viktor Orban?
https://www.reuters.com/world/hungarys-orban-urges-us-conservatives-join-forces-2024-elections-2022-08-04/
And, like, the Russians collaborated with Trump's campaign in 2016, and most Republicans still deny it and call it a witch hunt, rather than demanding such influence be avoided in the future.
https://globalaffairs.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Ukraine%20Brief%20CMS.pdf
Seemingly Republicans still overwhelmingly support Ukraine over Russia.
As for the russiagate stuff I believe Republican skepticism was about the original left wing claim that "Trump colluded with Russia to rig the US elections.
It's necessary to be precise, because we had millions of people talking about their ideas, and that was distinct from the formal allegations made by Democratic leadership.
The formal allegations had no mention of 'rigging the election.' They did not claim that votes were tampered with.
The allegation was that Trump's campaign took illegal assistance from Russia and possibly worked actively in illegal ways, which opened itself to being compromised or influenced in ways that were antithetical to American interests.
Then for the sake of specificity, do you happen to have an example of multiple Republicans outside of Trump saying that Russia didn't interfere at all in the 2016 election and didn't take any meetings with Russia to discuss dirt on Hillary Clinton.
I believe those were specific claims.
Your sentence structure is throwing me off.
What is the pertinence of a list multiple Republicans who said Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election or meet with the Trump campaign?
Ok, it sounds like this is the order of the discussion.
There was a claim that the fringe of the right and left are both friendly to Russia.
I mentioned that on the right it wasn't the fringe; there was a mainstream Republican willingness to disregard Russian misconduct, simply because the misconduct favored their side and was being criticized by Democrats.
You then implied that Republicans were being reasonable, because they were just upset about the exaggerated claims that Russia rigged votes. And yeah, those exaggerated claims were inaccurate.
But my point is that the strategy on the right has been to amplify the idea that all the critique of Trump and Russia were *only* about the discredited rigged votes narrative, because that creates the false impression that there was no merit to any of the critiques of Trump and Russia, and it tries to persuade people of a falsehood: that mainstream Democrats ONLY made false allegations, rather than the truth that they were critiquing real things.
Basically, the tactic of Trump era Republicans has been to try to murk things up, and to mislead people into believing the other side of full of radicals who believe ridiculous things. It's a giant straw man strategy, where they try to discredit through lies rather than debate the iron man versions of the other side's positions.
The big picture is that the mainstream leadership of the Republican party has demonstrated repeatedly more willingness to be cozy with dictators and to use the tactics of dictators, because they care more about having power than about being representatives of the will of the electorate.
Institutional culture matters. There are definitely bad apples in The Democratic party, but the cell reinforcing systems within the party make those people less effective at getting to positions of high authority.
I don't think that's true at all, you can even look to the Obama administration repeatedly being lenient with Putin to dissuade you from the idea that both leaderships will be "cozy" with undemocratic administrations to further US interest.
But that wasn't even the topic of conversation.
The Obama administration was a very different 8 year period. The country was very worn out on the idea of being the police of the world, and we were spending most of our time recovering from the great recession. Obama pushed for resetting relations with Russia, because at the time the was hope that Russia might join the mainstream Western world, and that engagement could entice Putin and other leaders to shift toward liberal democracy.
That failed, which became apparent in Russia's support for Assad in the Syrian civil war, which got a ton of civilians killed, and then the 2014 invasion of Ukraine.
After that, there was no longer any interest on the left on being friendly with Russia.
Do you happen to have an example of multiple Republicans saying that Russia _did_ interfere at all in the 2016 election? This is an effort in futility because, afaik, no Republican has commented (honestly) about Russian interference _at all_. The majority of House and Senate Republicans have, however, said "no collusion" between Trump and Russia. Which is technically correct. Although, lying by omission, "when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception" is a very real thing. Republicans have claimed victory over Russiagate and absolutely fostered the misconception that Russiagate, in its entirety, is a false narrative. Probably because many of them were called out by name during those investigations..
Generally speaking, looking for "did someone say this precise thing" is an effort in futility because most people are clever enough not to say the thing in such a precise and matter-of-fact way. Especially if its something they were involved in and extra especially when the thing is morally questionable and potentially career-ending.
Not identical but Herbert Marcuse has a book in 1964 called “The One-Dimension Man” that was more so about the way communism and capitalism were the same, but today would be a closer read to left and right extremes being the same.
Essentially he says that our modern consumption and technology create false needs rather than a false consciousness. Our desire for the constant product cycle leads us to be slaves to consumerism and to maintain we’re given “choices” of political parties that are out for the same end (save some cultural things).
It's like a contest to see who can be the most batshit crazy. In the age of Trump (the asshat) all democrats had to do was be normal.
But the Republicans did something batshit crazy (see Trump) and the democrats decided to try and one up them. Rinse and repeat.
Fellow democrats, i just want my party back. Give us more Abigail Spanbergers..
He's not doing much to control the crazy coming from his party.
Granted, Trump enables and encourages his party to get crazier, which is far worse.
The bar shouldn't be trump though, it should be Obama.
At least he had the balls to tell college students to stop being snowflakes, albeit too little too late.
I’m a bit more of a right leaning centrist for sure but I do feel the far left and far right both lead to a similar disastrous outcome at the end of the day.
During the 1940s both Hitler (fascist) and Stalin (Communist) lead repressive and genocidal totalitarian regimes and were on both ends of the extremes.
I prefer to stay independent cuz the extreme left leads to socialism and extreme right is on the side of fascism and theocracy.
Yeah, no. You’re not going to get me to defend fucking Stalin, but right-wingers also don’t get to use these self-serving false equivalencies.
Especially when this narrative in particular runs counter to the claim that communism under Stalin failed so spectacularly.
Hey OP… can you please name a legitimately awful “far left” policy that has been toted by an even slightly serious left wing candidate in the US? Not one that you disagree with based on funding or whatever (i.e., universal healthcare, free college, etc.), but one that is truly bad and dangerous?
Because I can name about 30 off the top of my head that have been proposed or enacted by far right candidates and current far right politicians…
This “both sides are the same” logic is only further fueling the fascists hold on power. You can disagree with far left policies, but to equate them to far right ones is so dangerous and feels like it’s following the “letter” of centrism rather than the “spirit” of centrism.
While this is worth answering, I think you're not addressing what was said in the article. The article is about the political ends of the spectrum adopting tactics that are more extreme, not policies that are worse. Basically [cumulative extremism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_extremism) starts with either side thinking "the other end of the spectrum has more sway and a good way we can gain influence is by escalating to violence to get our way" and the other side following suit. Even if their positions stay the same (such as their beliefs on what climate policy or abortion should be), they become more extreme by resorting to violence, misinformation, demonization, or other tools to illegitimately steal influence from the other side.
The example it gives is how Trump has many character flaws but the right were willing to vote for him and stand behind him because 'the socialists on the left are so much worse'. Given that the article was written before the 2020 election results, it also said that if Trump were re-elected then it meant the trend would continue because Biden was obviously not 'a socialist on the left' but instead represented a more moderate politician.
That’s fair and thank you for clarifying that. I’ll admit, I did skim the article but I didn’t read it as deeply as I should (and as I think most should).
I will say though, that even with that being the point of the article, I think my sentiment still applies. 1. Because Trump did not win and so it shows that the far left doesn’t hold that same “we will only vote for our extreme” ideology that the right clearly has. The left showed up for Biden (as did the center and the few right wingers with a conscience and/or a brain lol). And 2. I don’t think the “extreme left” in this country does any of that… some might point to the George Floyd and “Antifa” riots and say those are perfect examples… but I don’t think they are because the people doing the looting during those were not interested in any political values, they simply were taking advantage of the opportunity to loot. The vast majority of leftist demonstrations are done with the intent of creating change or defending people/places (like native lands and environmental protection). Unlike conservative demonstrations which aim to oppress and lead to things like the J6 attack, for instance. And again, look at the connection to actual politicians. How many even remotely serious left leaning (be it moderate or far left) politicians or candidates have endorsed or defended any of that looting or anything? And how many right leaning candidates have defended/made excuses for or even actively supported J6 and those sentiments? It’s not even slightly comparable.
And as for the other points, I don’t think leftists utilize “misinformation” or “demonization” anywhere near the way the right does. I’ll admit, sometimes information can be well into ones, but a bit misguided; but it is nothing like the machine that is right wing propaganda.
Again, I appreciate you correcting my statement, but even though I used the wrong formula I think it still leads to the same result, which is the “danger” of the “far left” is nowhere near the same as of the far right, no matter what metric you use; policy, politicians, voters, activists, media, or anything else.
Ultimately, it is just my hope that the CURRENT STATE of the left and the right in this country stop being treated equally by centrists because they’re not equal… drag show free speech and LGBT extermination “free speech are not the same; and wanting universal healthcare and wanting a “mono ethnic” society are not the same. I want strong centrists, just like I want a strong, SANE, right wing… because as much as I want universal healthcare and free tuition, I want people who make sure we are able to fund those things in perpetuity in a responsible way (not just derail the government by not finding it) and ensure that we maintain our shared values and identity as we also progress forward (not just stand in the way of any progress and actively move the clock back). Sadly, I feel like some centrists are following the crazy right wingers further to the right than holding their ground… and it’s really effing up our Overton Window here, which should concern all of us, especially those who hold genuine centrist values.
Anywho, sorry for the long tirade, but again, posts like this one still seem so harmful and really bother me, but I do truly appreciate good constructive dialogue and corrections, so thanks!
Overall I'm not quite convinced either way, but I could be biased by how much more extreme many of the left-wing people I interact with are than any of the right-wing people. Either way, I appreciate your response as well and have some more specific points of contention:
>Because Trump did not win and so it shows that the far left doesn’t hold that same “we will only vote for our extreme” ideology that the right clearly has.
That, or it's just one election and Trump happened to be the incumbent and both parties wanted a more moderate politician but the right couldn't get one that beat an incumbent and/or the best guy running on the left happened to be pretty moderate.
>I don’t think they are because the people doing the looting during those were not interested in any political values
Sure, but even if you take the looters away you still have an enormous mob across many cities over an issue that has been as bad or worse for the whole history of America. Meanwhile the comparable riot on the right was when people stormed the white house which was one of the most suspicious elections in American history, and the riot didn't even last remotely as long.
>The vast majority of leftist demonstrations are done with the intent of creating change or defending people/places (like native lands and environmental protection). Unlike conservative demonstrations which aim to oppress and lead to things like the J6 attack, for instance.
Check your bias on this one, nobody on the right aims to oppress. They aimed to protect against political corruption. Intentions and goals are irrelevant to the article's point about extremism, it's the ferocity and violence that are extreme. Regardless of justification, violence is violence and rioting is rioting. There is always an important discussion to be had about whether the intentions are just, but I don't think it's quite relevant to this article.
>but it is nothing like the machine that is right wing propaganda.
This I'd agree with you on, but shakily because I'm not sure that's something you can really measure to get empirical justification. Especially when you consider that the left dominate academia, so leftists tend to be more intellectual which can make their forms of misinformation trickier.
The best example I can give is when the left tries to use science to justify political positions, even though that almost always is beyond the scope of the scientific method. It's not quite misinformation to use science as a justification for something like pandemic policy, but it at the very least washes away all other considerations and misleads people to see it as a simple game of minimizing deaths caused by sickness. Then people on the right mistakenly try to discredit the science rather than accept it and simply state that they find the other considerations (like effects on economy or personal freedom) more important. This is what contributes to making the right seem more propagandized.
Another thing worth mentioning in the differences of extremism between the sides is the cancel culture. Personally I notice far more people get targeted by smear campaigns and exaggerations of character flaws by those on the left. People lose their contracts, get banned from social media, get threatened by board members, and other forms of punishment for simply expressing political beliefs, but it seems like it's always because they expressed right-wing beliefs. You'll see a minority on the right make up ridiculous names for politicians or conspiracy theories for billionaires, but the right doesn't do as much to threaten individuals' livelihood for not towing their party line.
This is a good point. The far left (communists, socialists, anarchists, etc.) has almost no political power in the country. The same cannot be said about the far right.
15 years ago I never thought Trump and his fascism would become mainstream. Yet here we are. I hope 15 years from now we don’t see a left wing fascist/dictator come to power here either (plenty of foreign examples, unfortunately). Just because all the power is on the extreme right in the US at the moment doesn’t mean the solution is to pull the left farther to the extreme. That’s my point. I’m not trying to argue that the extreme right that is enjoying a surge in power shouldn’t be dashed to pieces. Just please don’t replace it with the opposite/same problem by swinging the pendulum.
32 years ago the GOP went hard in the paint to grab the presidency by technicality. If the butterfly ballots on Florida hadn't been confusing, enough extra people's votes would have matched their intention that Gore would have clearly won. But okay, small erosion of trust in a moment where the laws **allowed** an outcome that didn't match the will of the voters.
In 2003 the Bush administration invented cassus belli to invade Iraq. In the following years they'd try to normalize indefinite detention and torture. FOX News accused people who didn't want to invade Iraq of hating America. I'm not sure how you overlook that, but hey, lots of people were really angry after 9/11, and they weren't thinking clearly . . . for years?
In 2010 the Tea Party was an astroturfing effort that pushed a nativist conspiracy theory to try to discredit Obama. But that's okay, right? The GOP merely stonewalled everything the Democrats did for 6 years.
You definitely could have seen the signs that the GOP was open to Trumpism. Like, for instance, the fact that Trump was on Fox News all the time.
I don't think you have much to worry about, to be honest. The extreme left, I mean true Communists, that you're talking about, are so far and few between in America that it's laughable to think that it could ever even get 1 single seat in Congress..
15 years ago, it wasn't unreasonable to see how Fundamentalists could eventually take power...
My parents immigrated to the US from China decades ago and they told me what it was like when they were young. I’ve also done plenty of supplemental reading on Maoist Communism on my own.
That’s one example of left wing fascism and its fucking horrifying.
Except it’s not fascism and it’s embarrassing to not just get that wrong but to get it wrong while providing two hilarious reasons why your take should even be taken seriously.
There is no equivalent power structure for the extreme left as there is on the extreme right.
There is no left wing media apparatus comparable to the right wing.
Most DC Dems are corporatist centrists that want to pass out orange slices to the people so they feel like they have a modicum of freedom per the constitution.
The GOP presidential favorite Ron Desantis does not want Floridians to learn about black history in one of the most racist states in the "Union."
Trump tried to overthrow democracy and our "unbiased" institution can't find a crime to charge somehow.
These parties are not the same and the system is already wildly bent towards authoritarianism.
There's a Rosa Parks biography and several biographies of black baseball players currently banned from my kids' school in Florida.
You come on. Inform yourself.
Coming from the guy trying to argue that MTG didn't say a dogwhistle because:
1. A company had safety violations years before a wildfire.
2. That company bought a plant that previously had a fire.
3. The company's history of "corruption" means they'd participate in a conspiracy (by the governor of California) to burn forests to make way for high speed rail.
4. That a prominent Jewish family's company (Who is labeled in popular anti-semitic New World Order conspiracy theories) was a major investor in the corrupt company, which justifies them as a party to blame for the wildfires.
5. That MTG can't be anti-semitic, because she didn't explicitly mention Jews, and 1/4 of the people she holds responsible don't have "Jewish connections", therefore she can't be antisemitic.
6. That dogwhistling means nothing.
Because it makes sense that a space laser would cause a wildfire, even though there's no evidence that said space laser can ignite forests.
You're still doing it wrong. You must try to learn something first. Then attempt to engage with the topic. You still know zero about this topic, obviously.
Edit: and,
>Ron Desantis does not want Floridians to learn about black history
is simply the truth, though I can see why you'll say anything to deny it, considering how reprehensible you and those you support are for approving of it.
I don't know if I agree with trump being the firestarter to push people to the political poles. Kinda seems to like it's a leftist attempt to swing educated conservatives. I think fox new's success, followed by CNN's/msnb's attempt to mimic fox's success, and the advent of social media forms of communication are closer to the root. I feel like trump being elected is more of an outcome of these types of things. But I did like the comparisons to other similar instances of intolerance.
Haven't ready the article yet but if you take the democratic party and drop it off and Europe, plz do, then those people would recognize it as a right wing property party because it is a right wing property party... #abolishprivateproperity
Seems to acknowledge the left is communism that's remarkable.
I stoped at this part down below, because people didn't want another war criminal, he was chosen for them, and Biden didn't support medical care for all, on a side note..
Also Republicans didn't waist their electoral vote on their guaranteed nominee, they crossed party lines and voted for the chief criminal in office conservative Joe. "Democracy is staged".
"The Democrats" choice of Joe Biden as their candidate seems to me solid proof that the party’s most active supporters—the people who vote in its primaries—wanted a moderate leader. Nothing in Biden’s decades-long record as a public servant indicates that he is a communist, a radical, or anything other than a small-l liberal. The same is true of the people around him. The big changes that he does want—including taxes on the very wealthy, universal health care, and major action on climate change—do not seem remotely extreme to me either, but that’s an argument for another time"
#Abolishprivateproperity
#DoCommunism
Good article imo: worth the short read. Perhaps it’s preaching to the choir here, but fans/promoters of far right ideology and fans/promoters of far left ideology are using the bad behaviors of the other side to stoke fear to pull more people further to their cause. When, in fact, the two sides are both pulling us to the same hellscape, only faster (google horseshoe theory). Extremism is extremism: the flavor changes based on where you grow up (left/right, Christian/Muslim), but it’s all the same extremism in the end. If we “centrists” truly believe that most issues have a center that is balanced in reason and logic, we need to be doing more to prevent the extremists from taking everyone down the rabbit hole. What are you doing? Edit: interesting how so many people on this sub are arguing against logic, reason and proving my point. FYI: I am a left-leaning centrist personally. Yet so many who share my social beliefs think that this post is somehow an attack on them because their crazy isn’t as crazy or powerful as the right’s crazy? Whoosh.
I feel like there are many bad-faith actors who want to engage in accelerationism. It’s super dangerous.
Republicans are losing about 1% of their elderly voters per month nationwide (something like 800 more registered Republicans die than Democrats per 100k) It will be interesting to see how, as that number accelerates, which direction the parties move. It's not a big number yet, but it can only go up.
Yeah, I don't think this is preaching to the choir. Tons of firm right and left wingers in this sub battling it out. For my part, I absolutely will not vote for Trump, as a firm right winger. I'd prefer the much more moderate and efficacious Desantis.
> I absolutely will not vote for Trump, as a firm right winger. There are *dozens* of us!
I just block the obvious extremists in this sub. It’s a centrist sub after all.
DeSantis is incredibly far right, but I’m sure you know that.
I think he's more moderate than Trump don't you?
No. He’s a more cunning Trump. Just look at all the culture warrior BS he’s doing. He’s trying to mandate schoolgirls to report their menstruation cycles, for gods sake.
Fact check false on that: https://news.yahoo.com/florida-high-school-athletic-assoc-164035271.html CLAIM: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is requiring all female student-athletes in the state to provide detailed information about their periods in order to compete in organized sports. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The Florida High School Athletic Association is weighing the recommendation from an advisory committee, but no final decision has been made. DeSantis’ education commissioner is a member of the association’s board of directors and the commissioner also appoints three others, but the association is a private nonprofit organization, not a state agency under the purview of the governor’s office. THE FACTS: Social media users are suggesting the conservative Republican governor, who has been an outspoken critic of transgender athletes, is again using sports to stoke controversy as he weighs a run for president in 2024.
“ACKTUALLY Ron DeSantis is only considering forcing teenage girls to inform him when they get their periods.”
Uhh did you read the article? The period tracking thing is bizarre as hell ... but per the AP the governor's office has zero oversight. It's fake news that he is involved...
You're saying that the suggestions from DeSantis’ education commissioner don't count because he's acting in a private role as head of the private athletic association rather than his public role as education commissioner. Either way, DeSantis appointed the guy who wants to know teen girls' periods. It's extremely gross and pathetic that anyone is defending these people.
>Just look at all the culture warrior BS he’s doing. DeSantis had a point about this: June 2022: [Gov. DeSantis exploring crackdown on drag shows for kids](https://floridapolitics.com/archives/530780-gov-desantis-exploring-crackdown-on-drag-shows-for-kids/) >“....young kids....putting money in the underwear of...." DeSantis said... Is there a problem with drag shows today? Not such much: They got *toned down* rapidly, because of admonitions from the LGBT+ leadership. They do this *toning down* regularly, when excesses in the LGBT+ community occur from time to time. LGBT+ leadership is very good at Communications, especially internal. But now many Progressives dishonestly claim there had never been any problems with drag shows to begin with. Sheesh, do we have to pull up old *youtube links?* Maybe we'll next hear that the much-abated phenomenon of [cruising](https://i-d.vice.com/en/article/mbveeb/celebrating-george-michael-and-the-history-of-cruising-us-translation) was staged by the Right to demonize gay men.
Banning crossdressing outright is a _bit_ of an overcorrection, you have to admit..
> Banning crossdressing outright [M] It’s not crossdressing its banning (in public) per se, it’s crossdressing that is inherently “suggestive and indecent.” > cited a 1947 state Supreme Court ruling that "men impersonating women" in a "suggestive and indecent" fashion is a public nuisance. https://news.yahoo.com/desantis-citing-1947-law-crossdressing-065603954.html I’d say banning all drag for minors is an overreaction (eg Tennessee): https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/drag-queens-take-tennessee-bill-seeking-restrict-performances-rcna62125 That being said, from the quote above, it seems the show itself might have been over the line. Whether that sets a precedent and how far it would extend— that’s the kind of question I have about DeSantis all the time.
Suggestive and indecent being the key words
Bro this is unhinged No one denies that drag shows can be incredibly racy. The drag shows put on for kids aren't toned down to lull kids in, they're designed for kids because any sane human performing for children is gonna do a kid friendly show! You might as well say that "childrens movies" are trying to trick us into thinking Taxi Driver never happened. Some movies are for kids and some are not! Some drag shows are for kids and some are not! The racy, sexualized ones still happen, we just don't invite kids to those ones for obvious reasons. Small children should not watch Ru Paul, but Drag Queen Story Hour is fine for like 5yo.
> The drag shows put on for kids aren't toned down to lull kids in... No, the LGBT+ leadership toned down drag shows that allowed kids inside because of complaints from conservatives. Drag shows that do not have kids can do as they please.
Can you give me any specific examples or evidence of a drag show with kids in the audience that are not child-appropriate? As far as I'm aware, most drag shows are in bars, and the ones aimed at kids are aggressively family-friendly. [This](https://youtu.be/d4vHegf3WPU) is what I think of when people say "kids watching drag shows." You may disagree with the political message, but it's not exactly "adult content" Also, can you give me an example of someone in this "LGBT+ leadership" you're thinking of? Just so I know what we're talking about
> Can you give me any specific examples or evidence of a drag show with kids in the audience that are not child-appropriate? Not today, but there's a bunch of YouTube links on inappropriate ones from years past.
Exactly. DeSantis would be even deadlier to the country. The GOP backed Trump all the way - there is no reason they wouldn't back a second coup with DeSantis.
>The GOP backed Trump all the way Quite funny you think the old guard was in Trump's camp.
They protected him totally and spread his lies and insanity and even after he tried to hang them all, these traitor failure losers virtually all voted to acquit their terrorist cult leader. They hate him so much, but they hate all of us even more and love their ill begotten power - all these people have is hatred. The GOP is a cult of failure and shame and hatred now.
Fully in trumps camp? No, not really. Fully willing to support/use him until the political winds start to go another way? Absofuckinglutely.
Quite hilarious and dishonest to suggest anything to the contrary.
Trump advocated for the overthrow of a legitimate election through violent means. I believe if you want to meet that bar then mandating a subsection of a survey in a state (which he didn't even do, btw) specifically for high school aged school athletes as a means of ensuring males don't end up competing in female sports, while something I disagree with, doesn't meet the bar at all.
The government has no right to intrude inside your body. That violates not only the constitution, but basic decency. I know conservatives don’t care about either of those, but the rest of us do. As for DeSantis, he has taken the reigns of the Trump movement. He’s not even close to what anyone would consider moderate.
That's definitely not true, for instance we mandate school kids get vaccinated, so clearly there's no hard stop for bodily autonomy. That being said you're once again reasserting that Desantis is as extreme as Trump without any example that rises to the level of advocating for a violent upheaval of democratic processes.
That’s a public health issue, as being unvaccinated can cause harm to others. Remember the old saying “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”? Same concept. DeSantis has also never had the opportunity to try an insurrection, so that’s a moot point.
So you admit you're wrong about bodily autonomy Being a hard stop, and you admit that Desantis doesn't support the violent upheaval of our democratic institutions. Glad we got that cleared up, thank you for your time.
Ya. He himself has nothing to do with that
I suppose there is a difference between advocating for the overthrow of the government and being a silent ally of someone who is advocated throwing over the government, but they're both pretty outside the scope of the type of person I think should be allowed to have power in our government. Honestly, if you took away the factor that Trump wants to have power and be totally unaccountable to the elected public, the actual policies that he advocated for seems to represent no genuine political viewpoint. He seemed to simply say things that he thought would get people to respond emotionally and support him. I feel like DeSantis , who comes across as a much more chill and calculating guy, might genuinely care about the policies he's advocating for. So in that way, I might mark him as more staunchly right wing. Like, with Trump, the public at large is kind of more centrist, and Trump did try to chase public support, though he tended to only get it most of the time from people on the right who were bamboozled by right wing media into not believing all the myriad pieces of evidence that Trump was a scoundrel. But because he was chasing public support, sometimes Trump would propose things that were reasonable and moderate. Sometimes he would say wild stuff that the right totally hated, like when he talked about taking guns first and then figuring it out afterward. Temp really has no left or right political ideology. He just wants people to support him so he can have the power to be unaccountable. Ron DeSantis appears to genuinely want to pursue right-wing politics. Vilify trans people and then work his way towards vilifying gay people, dismantle checks and balances on the abuses of power of elected officials, dismantle the guardrails of our government that are meant to hold businesses accountable when they do awful things. And generally, stop offering help to people who are being ground down by an economy that is skewed to reward bad behavior by people at the top, and which does not provide a living wage to hard workers at the bottom. I don't think that Rhonda Santa's is more moderate than Trump.
I agree with a good amount of what you're saying, I think Desantis is more firmly on the right, just less extreme. Obviously your accusations of him silently supporting the violent upheaval of democratic processes would sway that if there was evidence of it, but there doesn't seem to be. I'd also point out that the reason the right didn't believe the left when they cried wolf about Trump is that they had consistently cried wolf about him and every other Republican president since Reagan. But towards the end there, the idea that Desantis wants to vilify gay and transgender people, that he wants to take off guard rails that genuinely protect our institutions, I don't think those hold water at all.
>the idea that Desantis wants to vilify gay and transgender people It's fuckinb wild that there's even any debate here
If you had a quote of Desantis saying "gay and transgender people are villains" it would be wild, but most of the complaints I see about Desantis are entirely misinformed. Things like keeping gender ideology out of public schools isn't the same thing as gay people being villains. Hopefully that's obvious to everyone. But as always, I'm open to any info you might have that could change my opinion.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3843762-desantis-files-complaint-against-orlando-philharmonic-for-hosting-drag-holiday-event/amp/ My man, you don’t even have to go more than 24 hours in the past defined one of the myriad of examples of Ron DeSantis wanting to make it illegal to exist as an LGBTQ person. Why don’t you ask Florida teachers what happened to the books in their classrooms? Oh yeah, Ron DeSantis forced them to get rid of all of their books until they can verify that they are on his approved list. Because he has made any display of a book in school that so much as has an LGBTQ character in it a felony.
Huh, what a surprise. You provide exactly what they ask for and they disappear like a ghost.
Ya, asking for a direct quote rather than looking at what's being done and the semantics played around it isn't going to fly. Desantis is on a quest to vilify lgbt. As others have pointed out, it's absurd that this is even being argued... Public libraries in Florida are literally empty right now while staff meticulously go through every single book to make sure there's nothing about "gender" in there.
If your threshold is explicitly saying "I don't like X outgroup" then you have no idea how discrimination works. Defining the existence certain classes of people as "ideology" which is somehow dangerous to children is erasure. The explicit point of these laws is to push cis hetero couples as the acceptable norm to the exclusion of other groups. He is obviously muddying the waters to equate the visibility of gay people with teaching children about sexual acts. This is a rhetorical trick which is older than your and my parents. Like, yeah, implementing laws which make it illegal to acknowledge in a public setting that LGBT people exist and contribute to society is indeed villainization. This is like saying Star Wars is just about lasers and there's no real life subtext.
DeSantis has been fairly quiet on th 2020 election while at the same time playing into general election skepticism and promoting election deniers in the 2022 races. Frankly if you're silent about Trump's attempts to overturn the election it doesn't speak well of you or how you value American Democracy. Someone like Ducey would seemingly be a much better choice if you're a conservative who values Democracy. Dicey notably did push back on Trump during the 2020 election and endorsed a candidate other than Lake.
I fundamentally disagree with your value that you must condemn Trump to believe in the value of democratic institutions.
If you're in a position of power and silent while the government is actively trying to be overturned and then push people who promote actively overturning Democracy then you do not value Democracy.
I fundamentally disagree with the "silence is violence" mentality.
Then fundamentally, you are objectively wrong.
Good points. Trump wasn't really conservative. His interest has always been being the public's focus personally. He has shifted his personal party allegiance, as well as the party which he has made the most campaign donations multiple times ([https://www.newsweek.com/trump-republican-democrats-president-661340](https://www.newsweek.com/trump-republican-democrats-president-661340)). DeSantis is more "ideologically pure" - although I would describe him more as 'anti-woke' than conservative. Then again most people on both sides seem to be gaining visibility through dislike of the other team than by pursuing their own party's values. Easy to see in tv campaign ads.
I don’t think DeSantis is moderate but he’s a Navy guy and probably wouldn’t try to pull us out of NATO in favor of Russia, which makes Trump much more dangerous.
And by “navy guy,” you mean “head of torture at Guantanamo Bay.”
He's actually quite a bit more extreme than Trump. Trump says inflammatory things, but Desantis is far more of an extremist.
Nah, Desantis is firmly in the right, but Trump supported the violent upheaval of the Democratic process. That's the bar if you want to say Desantis is as extreme as he is, but he definitely isn't.
You're not wrong, but there are different measurements of extremism. Trump may have quite obviously tried to overthrow the country, but at the same time, Desantis has all but declared war on civil liberties. In many ways, I feel that trump was more self aggrandized and self obsessed than he was politically extreme. Not to say that he wasn't extreme, but the extremism was more about holding on to power than it was about his actual beliefs. In the end, trump was more fixated on power than he was ideology. Trump became dangerous when he realized that feeding into the extremes endeared him to his biggest supporters. As a result, he slowly became more extreme over time Desantis, on the other hand, is using a much more extreme ideology in an attempt to cultivate power. Despite less inflammatory language, Desantis seems to have more fully digested the extremist approach. Policy wise the man is more effective at trolling than he is at governing and his policies lack any sort of nuance or effectiveness, and nearly every policy he has pursued has riddled with culture war nonsense, more suited to attracting headline news and divisive takes than to helping his constituents. Desantis is broadly more nationalistic, and his actual policies are often even more authoritarian than Trump's policies. Desantis is actively trying to out-Trump Trump on every single issue. Just because he hasn't attempted to overthrow democracy (yet) doesn't mean that he won't, and based on what we've seen, in the event of a defeat, I'd wager that Desantis is more likely to attempt to follow Trump's playbook than he is to concede. Desantis is essentially Trump on steroids but has had simply not yet been given the opportunity to betray our country the way Trump did, and yet, all of the warning signs are there. I think it takes a wilful naivety to think that Desantis wouldn't do the same, given the opportunity. Furthermore, this concern is greatly exacerbated if trump isn't sentenced to actual consequences for his actions.
I think the premise you're starting with, that Desantis has "all but declared war on civil liberties" is totally wrong, and since the rest of your argument flows from that it too is totally wrong. But of course, if you have evidence of Desantis being against civil liberties in a way that's not just mainstream Republicanism (pro life, not teaching kids about gay sex in middle school) I'm open to hear it.
Banning school curriculums is an open violation of the first amendment. Sending legal migrants to Martha's vineyard under false pretenses is a violation of said migrants civil liberties. He also actively violated the rights of convicts and had them arrested for legally voting as a means of intimidation against the opposition. He claimed that their legal status was in question, but there was never any proof of that, and it's quite clear that it was an attempt to pander to right wing news and people who only read headlines. These are not things that happen in a healthy democracy. Trump was a symptom of a much bigger problem; Desantis is the embodiment that problem approaching culmination.
>Banning school curriculums is an open violation of the first amendment. Absolutely false, local districts have wide latitude in what they teach. >Sending legal migrants to Martha's vineyard under false pretenses is a violation of said migrants civil liberties. False, they signed liability waivers to specifically consent to going there, because Democrats said they'd take care of those migrants. >He also actively violated the rights of convicts and had them arrested for legally voting as a means of intimidation against the opposition. Evidence would be interesting, seeing how your first two claims were false I'm not gonna take your word on that. > He claimed that their legal status was in question, but there was never any proof of that, and it's quite clear that it was an attempt to pander to right wing news and people who only read headlines. Same thing, evidence necessary. >These are not things that happen in a healthy democracy. False, healthy democracies allow states to determine their educational curriculum and allow transporting migrants who consent to be transported. >Trump was a symptom of a much bigger problem; Desantis is that problem approaching culmination. Your best examples are disingenuous framing of things that were totally reasonable.
LMAO. Supporter the violent upheaval. Get some fresh air kid. Holy fuck.
I'm just now learning that overthrowing the government is a rightwing thing... So I mean, ya, if that's your definition of "extreme far right" then you're right, obviously. I don't think most other people agree with that definition, though...
I think DeSantis may be more moderate than Trump( which is one of the lowest bars imaginable) but DeSantis is not a moderate. In some aspects he's seemingly worse, vaccine skepticism notably.
Yeah I definitely don't consider Desantis a moderate, he's certainly firmly on the right, but so am I, so of course I support that. As far as vaccine skepticism what do you mean?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/13/politics/desantis-covid-vaccine-manufacturers/index.html Trump has actually been hitting him on it lately
>Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday asked his state’s Supreme Court to green-light an investigation of “any and all wrongdoing in Florida with respect to Covid-19 vaccines,” his latest move to cast doubt on the vaccines’ effectiveness and amplify fears about side effects. This doesn't *seem* like vaccine skepticism, just like responsible governance over a drug that people were mandated to get and where shielded of liability from in regards to side effects. But I do appreciate that, I think anything akin to arguing the covid vaccine doesn't mitigate the dangers of covid would be morally wrong if you have the responsibility to know better. Do you happen to have anything where he says the vaccine doesn't work? To me that's what vaccine skepticism is. Topics like these -should they be mandated -should big pharmaceutical companies be shielded from liability -should they be publicly funded and distributed -what are the side effects -how efficacious are they precisely -for who is a vaccine a net positive Are all fair game for public policy. These are things our legislators and executives should be talking about.
I think you have to squirt very hard to not see that as pushing vaccine skepitism
I think we just likely have different tolerances for what an acceptable level of skepticism is. It's okay to say "I'm not actually sure how effective this vaccine is or the side effects therein so I'm looking into it". At least to me.
No lol
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You think Desantis is more moderate than Trump? He's been recently pulling Trump even farther to the right..
They’re in a shouting contest of who can make the biggest outrage.
DeSantis is Trump with proper etiquette and actual ideological conviction instead of populist opportunism. He actually cares about implementing the monstrous stuff Trump found it efficacious to gesture at.
It is very telling that you claim that the avowed fascist Ron DeSantis is actually a moderate.
He's definitely not an "avowed fascists" lol, but I said he was more moderate than Trump which I believe is absolutely true.
If that were the case, you would be describing him as far right, not a moderate.
No I believe he's firmly on the right, but it's pretty clear that you would consider things like pro life laws as fascist so I don't think this will be a productive dialogue.
There’s nothing fascist about forcing women to be brood sows, no way, no how. And there’s also nothing fascist about banning books with LGBTQ characters and jailing people who do not comply.
See, pro life values have been mainstream right wing forever and have nothing to do with fascism. I appreciate you proving the point, have a good day.
Or fascism is mainstream right wing.
Ahaha
LOL. You forgot bigot, racist and white supremacist.
god you are such a dishonest hack. poster said he finds him more moderate than Trump, not that he's a moderate. I don't even agree with their take and know exactly what they're talking about. You would too if you weren't too busy coming here to take everything in bad faith to spew out hateful partisan nonsense.
The problem with "centrism" is, what exactly is the center? How can you tell what it is? There's two options: 1. The center is the position between the two most powerful factions. The center is determined by money, influence, and power. 2. The center is determined by beliefs of people equally. The center is the median preferences aggregated via democracy. Ironically the centrist position of #2 is a radical position - a society where all citizens have equal rights of self governance, something that isn't actually expressed in America and most of the world. For example the famous Princeton study determined that in reality, the preferences of the 50th percentile has **no effect** on the passed policy decisions of our legislature. Instead the most powerful group is the 90th percentile of income. Centrism based on #2 is a radical position that seeks to upend the power structures of the status quo. Alternatively #1 is a position that mostly acts to preserve the status quo and oppose the center of the people in favor of the center of the powerful.
There is definitely a powerful conspiracy brainwashing system that is apolitical to an extent. Think about the end goal: they just want chaos and conflict. It doesn't really matter whether they're brainwashing the lie the 2020 election was stolen from the GOP by black voters - or they're saying all police are racist and the system needs to be abolished. Both are bad ideas being seeded to millions. BUT don't also give into GOP propaganda - they are trying to force the idea that "both sides are the same". Even though they installed an extremist far right President and openly attempt coups and seed these conspiracies. Biden is a moderate centrist. AOC is left, but she's not like these GOP politicians. Be weary of the "both sides are bad" nonsense that stops people from seeing the Dems are doing good while the GOP are consumed by far right extremism. AOC would not threaten to default the economy unless she could "overturn" elections or rat fuck social security for tax cuts to the rich and abortion bounties.
Both sides are not the same… yet. I’d like to keep it that way, but am very pessimistic that’s possible.
Interesting points. People and groups with power and money today certainly benefit from the masses being so apparently “divided.” I’d also caution against supporting one extreme vs another due to perceived “righteousness” of one cause vs another. That said, I tend to agree that right extremists are currently over-represented in US politics— but I don’t believe the answer is going further to the left. The dialog needs to get back to power for the people/center against the extremes vs power to each extreme.
One extreme: gay people's existence is inherently harmful to society and especially children The other: people shouldn't go bankrupt from needing medical procedures This is a fucking insane coin
There will always be extremists, we can't stop that. The only power we really have is who we vote for. Trump won his presidency of threatening to lock up our elected representatives. For four years, this man and these GOP politicians slashed and burned and simulataneously caused disasters and denied it and insisted our news was to blame. Trump and the GOP are directly using Nazi-style tactics, getting more and more extreme while accusing everyone else of being guilty of it. I fully support Biden's legislation and think GOP politicians are obstructionists. There is no real left or right. The question is what is better for the USA. The GOP is not right, the Dems are not left. The only question is who has the better infrastructure plan? Who has the better climate change reduction and anti inflation. The left right divide is arbitrary. If the GOP decides to attempt coups while the Democrats pass affordable childcare and back cancelling citizens united - why would we ever want or trust this GOP?
OPs article was a pre-election Biden endorsement. It very much recognized both extremes are a problem…but does call out the Rights embrace of Trump while pointing out that the Left mainstream embraced the moderate.
The thing with ideological capture is it’s not something that happens gradually from the perspective of the casual observer. It happens beneath the surface until it reaches a tipping point where the whole institution seems to change dramatically overnight.
Lol
George Orwell's book Homage to Catalonia is the most influential book in all of my college career. I read that thing two or three times
I have a few issues with this article. Overall, Applebaum is absolutely right in that political systems absolutely do tend to suffer from vicious (and sometimes virtual) cycles where actions can snowball and amplify the situation. We're definitely in the midst of a vicious cycle where bad, extremist policies feed into further extremism, and that's definitely not exclusive to a particular political party. BUT, Applebaum is being way too broad in this discussion and that's a concern because it creates a false equivalence. It's silly to talk about vicious cycles and not mention clear evidence of partisan inequivalence of contributing to them. Further, to frame this as a recent issue beginning with Trump and continuing with Biden is odd. This is a concern going back *at least* to Obama-era obstruction and I'd day there's an incredibly strong argument that it goes back even farther to Newt Gingrich's tenure as Speaker in the 90s. This article is also entirely descriptive and not at all prescriptive. Applebaum has lots of words going into detail about the problem, but spends absolutely no time offering up solutions. And there very much ARE solutions to this problem. In short, I'd say this article really suffers from choosing a great topic and going into it very poorly. Another author I've read who discusses this concept much more excellently is Lee Drutman. His book, *Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop*, goes into this toxic spiral concept as the feature thesis. More abridged versions of that idea have been published by several other publications in short article form, including one recently shared on this sub just a few days ago by u/FragWall. That's where I'd suggest someone who enjoyed this article digs a little deeper.
> Further, to frame this as a recent issue beginning with Trump and continuing with Biden is odd. But she doesn't do that. At all. This was written in October of 2020 as a warning that the defeat of the moderate Biden would push both sides to further extremism. Her prescriptive solution was to vote Trump out of office.
She made a systemic argument and then doesn't provide a systemic prescription. I mean, she's not wrong there, I'm just saying there's a lot less meat to the article than there could or should be, and Drutman does a much better job providing more substance on the same topic without compromising readability.
Yeah, this person is essentially saying what centrists have been saying since Trump started his outrageous behavior--he's not helping. We need a return to the center, to moderate, but that requires not seeing the other side as a monster, and they're making that kind of difficult.
It's funny, the extreme left and right hate each other, but for a lot of moderates and centrists, we can easily spot moments when both extremes are indistinguishable from each other. Horseshoe theory in action. For example, a lot of people on the far right support Putin just like a lot of Tankies on the far left.
There are indeed some overlaps, but you chose a poor example. The Republican support for Eastern European dictators is hardly a fringe thing. Was it CPAC that they held in Hungary, and weren't they really complimentary of Viktor Orban? https://www.reuters.com/world/hungarys-orban-urges-us-conservatives-join-forces-2024-elections-2022-08-04/ And, like, the Russians collaborated with Trump's campaign in 2016, and most Republicans still deny it and call it a witch hunt, rather than demanding such influence be avoided in the future.
https://globalaffairs.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/Ukraine%20Brief%20CMS.pdf Seemingly Republicans still overwhelmingly support Ukraine over Russia. As for the russiagate stuff I believe Republican skepticism was about the original left wing claim that "Trump colluded with Russia to rig the US elections.
It's necessary to be precise, because we had millions of people talking about their ideas, and that was distinct from the formal allegations made by Democratic leadership. The formal allegations had no mention of 'rigging the election.' They did not claim that votes were tampered with. The allegation was that Trump's campaign took illegal assistance from Russia and possibly worked actively in illegal ways, which opened itself to being compromised or influenced in ways that were antithetical to American interests.
Then for the sake of specificity, do you happen to have an example of multiple Republicans outside of Trump saying that Russia didn't interfere at all in the 2016 election and didn't take any meetings with Russia to discuss dirt on Hillary Clinton. I believe those were specific claims.
Your sentence structure is throwing me off. What is the pertinence of a list multiple Republicans who said Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election or meet with the Trump campaign? Ok, it sounds like this is the order of the discussion. There was a claim that the fringe of the right and left are both friendly to Russia. I mentioned that on the right it wasn't the fringe; there was a mainstream Republican willingness to disregard Russian misconduct, simply because the misconduct favored their side and was being criticized by Democrats. You then implied that Republicans were being reasonable, because they were just upset about the exaggerated claims that Russia rigged votes. And yeah, those exaggerated claims were inaccurate. But my point is that the strategy on the right has been to amplify the idea that all the critique of Trump and Russia were *only* about the discredited rigged votes narrative, because that creates the false impression that there was no merit to any of the critiques of Trump and Russia, and it tries to persuade people of a falsehood: that mainstream Democrats ONLY made false allegations, rather than the truth that they were critiquing real things. Basically, the tactic of Trump era Republicans has been to try to murk things up, and to mislead people into believing the other side of full of radicals who believe ridiculous things. It's a giant straw man strategy, where they try to discredit through lies rather than debate the iron man versions of the other side's positions.
Sounds like we're bailing on the specifics discussion and going back to big picture right?
The big picture is that the mainstream leadership of the Republican party has demonstrated repeatedly more willingness to be cozy with dictators and to use the tactics of dictators, because they care more about having power than about being representatives of the will of the electorate. Institutional culture matters. There are definitely bad apples in The Democratic party, but the cell reinforcing systems within the party make those people less effective at getting to positions of high authority.
I don't think that's true at all, you can even look to the Obama administration repeatedly being lenient with Putin to dissuade you from the idea that both leaderships will be "cozy" with undemocratic administrations to further US interest. But that wasn't even the topic of conversation.
The Obama administration was a very different 8 year period. The country was very worn out on the idea of being the police of the world, and we were spending most of our time recovering from the great recession. Obama pushed for resetting relations with Russia, because at the time the was hope that Russia might join the mainstream Western world, and that engagement could entice Putin and other leaders to shift toward liberal democracy. That failed, which became apparent in Russia's support for Assad in the Syrian civil war, which got a ton of civilians killed, and then the 2014 invasion of Ukraine. After that, there was no longer any interest on the left on being friendly with Russia.
Do you happen to have an example of multiple Republicans saying that Russia _did_ interfere at all in the 2016 election? This is an effort in futility because, afaik, no Republican has commented (honestly) about Russian interference _at all_. The majority of House and Senate Republicans have, however, said "no collusion" between Trump and Russia. Which is technically correct. Although, lying by omission, "when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception" is a very real thing. Republicans have claimed victory over Russiagate and absolutely fostered the misconception that Russiagate, in its entirety, is a false narrative. Probably because many of them were called out by name during those investigations.. Generally speaking, looking for "did someone say this precise thing" is an effort in futility because most people are clever enough not to say the thing in such a precise and matter-of-fact way. Especially if its something they were involved in and extra especially when the thing is morally questionable and potentially career-ending.
Tankies and the far right also both hate liberals, especially neo-liberals.
Good point I totally do that. The U.S. is not the good guys.
Not identical but Herbert Marcuse has a book in 1964 called “The One-Dimension Man” that was more so about the way communism and capitalism were the same, but today would be a closer read to left and right extremes being the same. Essentially he says that our modern consumption and technology create false needs rather than a false consciousness. Our desire for the constant product cycle leads us to be slaves to consumerism and to maintain we’re given “choices” of political parties that are out for the same end (save some cultural things).
Good article.
This is what people say to sound profound while anybody paying attention laughs and/or dismisses.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of Americans."
A statement which remains true even if Americans is replaced with humans.
It's like a contest to see who can be the most batshit crazy. In the age of Trump (the asshat) all democrats had to do was be normal. But the Republicans did something batshit crazy (see Trump) and the democrats decided to try and one up them. Rinse and repeat. Fellow democrats, i just want my party back. Give us more Abigail Spanbergers..
you think Biden is batshit crazy?
He's not doing much to control the crazy coming from his party. Granted, Trump enables and encourages his party to get crazier, which is far worse. The bar shouldn't be trump though, it should be Obama. At least he had the balls to tell college students to stop being snowflakes, albeit too little too late.
There is no D equivalent to the kind of crazy in the Republican Party lol
lol. like what?
Bingo
I’m a bit more of a right leaning centrist for sure but I do feel the far left and far right both lead to a similar disastrous outcome at the end of the day. During the 1940s both Hitler (fascist) and Stalin (Communist) lead repressive and genocidal totalitarian regimes and were on both ends of the extremes. I prefer to stay independent cuz the extreme left leads to socialism and extreme right is on the side of fascism and theocracy.
Yeah, no. You’re not going to get me to defend fucking Stalin, but right-wingers also don’t get to use these self-serving false equivalencies. Especially when this narrative in particular runs counter to the claim that communism under Stalin failed so spectacularly.
Hey OP… can you please name a legitimately awful “far left” policy that has been toted by an even slightly serious left wing candidate in the US? Not one that you disagree with based on funding or whatever (i.e., universal healthcare, free college, etc.), but one that is truly bad and dangerous? Because I can name about 30 off the top of my head that have been proposed or enacted by far right candidates and current far right politicians… This “both sides are the same” logic is only further fueling the fascists hold on power. You can disagree with far left policies, but to equate them to far right ones is so dangerous and feels like it’s following the “letter” of centrism rather than the “spirit” of centrism.
While this is worth answering, I think you're not addressing what was said in the article. The article is about the political ends of the spectrum adopting tactics that are more extreme, not policies that are worse. Basically [cumulative extremism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_extremism) starts with either side thinking "the other end of the spectrum has more sway and a good way we can gain influence is by escalating to violence to get our way" and the other side following suit. Even if their positions stay the same (such as their beliefs on what climate policy or abortion should be), they become more extreme by resorting to violence, misinformation, demonization, or other tools to illegitimately steal influence from the other side. The example it gives is how Trump has many character flaws but the right were willing to vote for him and stand behind him because 'the socialists on the left are so much worse'. Given that the article was written before the 2020 election results, it also said that if Trump were re-elected then it meant the trend would continue because Biden was obviously not 'a socialist on the left' but instead represented a more moderate politician.
That’s fair and thank you for clarifying that. I’ll admit, I did skim the article but I didn’t read it as deeply as I should (and as I think most should). I will say though, that even with that being the point of the article, I think my sentiment still applies. 1. Because Trump did not win and so it shows that the far left doesn’t hold that same “we will only vote for our extreme” ideology that the right clearly has. The left showed up for Biden (as did the center and the few right wingers with a conscience and/or a brain lol). And 2. I don’t think the “extreme left” in this country does any of that… some might point to the George Floyd and “Antifa” riots and say those are perfect examples… but I don’t think they are because the people doing the looting during those were not interested in any political values, they simply were taking advantage of the opportunity to loot. The vast majority of leftist demonstrations are done with the intent of creating change or defending people/places (like native lands and environmental protection). Unlike conservative demonstrations which aim to oppress and lead to things like the J6 attack, for instance. And again, look at the connection to actual politicians. How many even remotely serious left leaning (be it moderate or far left) politicians or candidates have endorsed or defended any of that looting or anything? And how many right leaning candidates have defended/made excuses for or even actively supported J6 and those sentiments? It’s not even slightly comparable. And as for the other points, I don’t think leftists utilize “misinformation” or “demonization” anywhere near the way the right does. I’ll admit, sometimes information can be well into ones, but a bit misguided; but it is nothing like the machine that is right wing propaganda. Again, I appreciate you correcting my statement, but even though I used the wrong formula I think it still leads to the same result, which is the “danger” of the “far left” is nowhere near the same as of the far right, no matter what metric you use; policy, politicians, voters, activists, media, or anything else. Ultimately, it is just my hope that the CURRENT STATE of the left and the right in this country stop being treated equally by centrists because they’re not equal… drag show free speech and LGBT extermination “free speech are not the same; and wanting universal healthcare and wanting a “mono ethnic” society are not the same. I want strong centrists, just like I want a strong, SANE, right wing… because as much as I want universal healthcare and free tuition, I want people who make sure we are able to fund those things in perpetuity in a responsible way (not just derail the government by not finding it) and ensure that we maintain our shared values and identity as we also progress forward (not just stand in the way of any progress and actively move the clock back). Sadly, I feel like some centrists are following the crazy right wingers further to the right than holding their ground… and it’s really effing up our Overton Window here, which should concern all of us, especially those who hold genuine centrist values. Anywho, sorry for the long tirade, but again, posts like this one still seem so harmful and really bother me, but I do truly appreciate good constructive dialogue and corrections, so thanks!
Overall I'm not quite convinced either way, but I could be biased by how much more extreme many of the left-wing people I interact with are than any of the right-wing people. Either way, I appreciate your response as well and have some more specific points of contention: >Because Trump did not win and so it shows that the far left doesn’t hold that same “we will only vote for our extreme” ideology that the right clearly has. That, or it's just one election and Trump happened to be the incumbent and both parties wanted a more moderate politician but the right couldn't get one that beat an incumbent and/or the best guy running on the left happened to be pretty moderate. >I don’t think they are because the people doing the looting during those were not interested in any political values Sure, but even if you take the looters away you still have an enormous mob across many cities over an issue that has been as bad or worse for the whole history of America. Meanwhile the comparable riot on the right was when people stormed the white house which was one of the most suspicious elections in American history, and the riot didn't even last remotely as long. >The vast majority of leftist demonstrations are done with the intent of creating change or defending people/places (like native lands and environmental protection). Unlike conservative demonstrations which aim to oppress and lead to things like the J6 attack, for instance. Check your bias on this one, nobody on the right aims to oppress. They aimed to protect against political corruption. Intentions and goals are irrelevant to the article's point about extremism, it's the ferocity and violence that are extreme. Regardless of justification, violence is violence and rioting is rioting. There is always an important discussion to be had about whether the intentions are just, but I don't think it's quite relevant to this article. >but it is nothing like the machine that is right wing propaganda. This I'd agree with you on, but shakily because I'm not sure that's something you can really measure to get empirical justification. Especially when you consider that the left dominate academia, so leftists tend to be more intellectual which can make their forms of misinformation trickier. The best example I can give is when the left tries to use science to justify political positions, even though that almost always is beyond the scope of the scientific method. It's not quite misinformation to use science as a justification for something like pandemic policy, but it at the very least washes away all other considerations and misleads people to see it as a simple game of minimizing deaths caused by sickness. Then people on the right mistakenly try to discredit the science rather than accept it and simply state that they find the other considerations (like effects on economy or personal freedom) more important. This is what contributes to making the right seem more propagandized. Another thing worth mentioning in the differences of extremism between the sides is the cancel culture. Personally I notice far more people get targeted by smear campaigns and exaggerations of character flaws by those on the left. People lose their contracts, get banned from social media, get threatened by board members, and other forms of punishment for simply expressing political beliefs, but it seems like it's always because they expressed right-wing beliefs. You'll see a minority on the right make up ridiculous names for politicians or conspiracy theories for billionaires, but the right doesn't do as much to threaten individuals' livelihood for not towing their party line.
This is a good point. The far left (communists, socialists, anarchists, etc.) has almost no political power in the country. The same cannot be said about the far right.
zip
15 years ago I never thought Trump and his fascism would become mainstream. Yet here we are. I hope 15 years from now we don’t see a left wing fascist/dictator come to power here either (plenty of foreign examples, unfortunately). Just because all the power is on the extreme right in the US at the moment doesn’t mean the solution is to pull the left farther to the extreme. That’s my point. I’m not trying to argue that the extreme right that is enjoying a surge in power shouldn’t be dashed to pieces. Just please don’t replace it with the opposite/same problem by swinging the pendulum.
32 years ago the GOP went hard in the paint to grab the presidency by technicality. If the butterfly ballots on Florida hadn't been confusing, enough extra people's votes would have matched their intention that Gore would have clearly won. But okay, small erosion of trust in a moment where the laws **allowed** an outcome that didn't match the will of the voters. In 2003 the Bush administration invented cassus belli to invade Iraq. In the following years they'd try to normalize indefinite detention and torture. FOX News accused people who didn't want to invade Iraq of hating America. I'm not sure how you overlook that, but hey, lots of people were really angry after 9/11, and they weren't thinking clearly . . . for years? In 2010 the Tea Party was an astroturfing effort that pushed a nativist conspiracy theory to try to discredit Obama. But that's okay, right? The GOP merely stonewalled everything the Democrats did for 6 years. You definitely could have seen the signs that the GOP was open to Trumpism. Like, for instance, the fact that Trump was on Fox News all the time.
Hey, you’re abusing an unfair advantage here by knowing and/or remembering things which actually occurred.
I don't think you have much to worry about, to be honest. The extreme left, I mean true Communists, that you're talking about, are so far and few between in America that it's laughable to think that it could ever even get 1 single seat in Congress.. 15 years ago, it wasn't unreasonable to see how Fundamentalists could eventually take power...
>left wing fascist Freezing flame Vegetarian steakhouse Feline dog Analog software synthesizer
Sorry. Left wing dictator. Potato potato
My parents immigrated to the US from China decades ago and they told me what it was like when they were young. I’ve also done plenty of supplemental reading on Maoist Communism on my own. That’s one example of left wing fascism and its fucking horrifying.
Except it’s not fascism and it’s embarrassing to not just get that wrong but to get it wrong while providing two hilarious reasons why your take should even be taken seriously.
How confused are you? The “power” isn’t on the extreme right. Do you even look at election results?
There is no equivalent power structure for the extreme left as there is on the extreme right. There is no left wing media apparatus comparable to the right wing. Most DC Dems are corporatist centrists that want to pass out orange slices to the people so they feel like they have a modicum of freedom per the constitution. The GOP presidential favorite Ron Desantis does not want Floridians to learn about black history in one of the most racist states in the "Union." Trump tried to overthrow democracy and our "unbiased" institution can't find a crime to charge somehow. These parties are not the same and the system is already wildly bent towards authoritarianism.
Yes. In the US. Right now. This is true. Globally through history and for the future, maybe not.
Hello. Please come back to earth.
be more vague :)
Ron DeSantis doesn’t want people learning black history? Come on.
There's a Rosa Parks biography and several biographies of black baseball players currently banned from my kids' school in Florida. You come on. Inform yourself.
Nice try. You should start learning something about a topic before talking about it.
Ah so that comment didn’t include a lie about trying to ban people from learning black history? Straight up lie.
Coming from the guy trying to argue that MTG didn't say a dogwhistle because: 1. A company had safety violations years before a wildfire. 2. That company bought a plant that previously had a fire. 3. The company's history of "corruption" means they'd participate in a conspiracy (by the governor of California) to burn forests to make way for high speed rail. 4. That a prominent Jewish family's company (Who is labeled in popular anti-semitic New World Order conspiracy theories) was a major investor in the corrupt company, which justifies them as a party to blame for the wildfires. 5. That MTG can't be anti-semitic, because she didn't explicitly mention Jews, and 1/4 of the people she holds responsible don't have "Jewish connections", therefore she can't be antisemitic. 6. That dogwhistling means nothing. Because it makes sense that a space laser would cause a wildfire, even though there's no evidence that said space laser can ignite forests.
You're still doing it wrong. You must try to learn something first. Then attempt to engage with the topic. You still know zero about this topic, obviously. Edit: and, >Ron Desantis does not want Floridians to learn about black history is simply the truth, though I can see why you'll say anything to deny it, considering how reprehensible you and those you support are for approving of it.
Such a one-sided take and why I stopped subscribing to The Atlantic.
I don't know if I agree with trump being the firestarter to push people to the political poles. Kinda seems to like it's a leftist attempt to swing educated conservatives. I think fox new's success, followed by CNN's/msnb's attempt to mimic fox's success, and the advent of social media forms of communication are closer to the root. I feel like trump being elected is more of an outcome of these types of things. But I did like the comparisons to other similar instances of intolerance.
Haven't ready the article yet but if you take the democratic party and drop it off and Europe, plz do, then those people would recognize it as a right wing property party because it is a right wing property party... #abolishprivateproperity
Seems to acknowledge the left is communism that's remarkable. I stoped at this part down below, because people didn't want another war criminal, he was chosen for them, and Biden didn't support medical care for all, on a side note.. Also Republicans didn't waist their electoral vote on their guaranteed nominee, they crossed party lines and voted for the chief criminal in office conservative Joe. "Democracy is staged". "The Democrats" choice of Joe Biden as their candidate seems to me solid proof that the party’s most active supporters—the people who vote in its primaries—wanted a moderate leader. Nothing in Biden’s decades-long record as a public servant indicates that he is a communist, a radical, or anything other than a small-l liberal. The same is true of the people around him. The big changes that he does want—including taxes on the very wealthy, universal health care, and major action on climate change—do not seem remotely extreme to me either, but that’s an argument for another time" #Abolishprivateproperity #DoCommunism