Why was my post title edited?

A quasi-fascism already revealed itself among most western nations under the guise of public health. Entire populations were stripped of their human rights, subject to state dictate and lost a significant degree of their power, freedoms, and the right to control their own lives during those times. So all this jibber-jabber about “our democracy” and the threat of a future fascism rings hollow in the wake of this period. We’ve already lived it and are still experiencing it.

In contrast to other federal, state, and provincial governments, the US government didn’t quite go down the path of other western nations.

Maybe pick up a book and figure out what fascism is. Universal healthcare isn't it.

I said “public health”, not “universal healthcare”. I also never said public health is fascism. Maybe pick up some glasses.

Oh, my bad, it's the "lock downs are fascism" bullshit again coming from the guy who will happily roll over to get shafted by oligarchs because he thinks the gubberment is the problem. This should be fun.

Uh oh, those those scary oligarchs. Can you name one and how he’ll hurt me?

"Vote! Contact your reps! Protest!", yes, we have been doing all this, and it's clearly not enough, otherwise none of this would be happening to begin with. The problem isn't external to the system, the problem is the system itself. — _db

True. But I’d argue it’s happening because the counter forces are stronger and better organized. They have the wealth and resources to create networks of power— mainly through use of propaganda. The Koch network is a prime example — Jane Mayer has done good work here.

But the answer, as always, is organizing. Especially on the local level. We’re often too distracted by the national drama — where we can do little to change — and pay little attention to state and local issues, where we can have a very real effect. That will have to be the way moving forward.

That’s what the right has been doing since Obama was elected— starting with state legislatures and midterm turnout. It worked very well. There’s no reason the left can’t do the same.

True, the Tea Party was largely motivated by the fear of “losing their country” to those very scary immigrants and minorities, but if the left can generate the same level of energy sans the xenophobia and racism, watch out.

The issue is we have the most disorganized Left in the world.

We live in sad times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Elections_of_July_1932

Fascism wins not just by democracy -- it organizes -- but there's precedent for fascists winning power through some democratic measures: by using the tolerance of republican rule, fascists organize.

Even so -- I still don't believe the answer is be better at hierarchy. That's a compromised position that I'm willing to work with, but for me I still think the answer is to be better at organizing without hierarchy.

But how to do that in our world? well... I already failed a few times at it, so I'm not sure.

Koch, Musk, Zuckerberg.

I don’t own a Tesla, use Facebook, and am largely unaware of Koch industries. If they ever strip me or anyone of our human rights I will stand in opposition. Until then, I guess the gubberment is the problem after all.

Yes, the world revolves around you. Which is why you are and remain an idiot.

You said these oligarchs will shaft me yet you cannot say how. Odd, that.

Lots of people are justifiably upset over recent events — _db

I am upset over recent events, BUT, in the context of our history, all this can not be a complete surprise.

We have had several episodes of militant reaction against efforts designed to extend aspects of democracy.

a) Eleven states succeeded from the Union in response to efforts to limit the spread of slaveholding. A civil war followed.

b) Reconstruction (such as it was) resulted in terrorism against blacks via the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and suppression of voting rights (which enabled the 'solid south' to maintain a long-term hold on Congress.

c. Anti-labor violence began in the 1880s--referencing the Hay Market event in Chicago.

d. A 'Red Scare' set off concerted violence against blacks and labor leaders in 1919.

e. Women won suffrage, but only after a long struggle. Suffrage aided the institution of Prohibition, a 13 year disaster.

f. Extreme conservatives have been unhappy about New Deal programs ever since the 1930s.

g. Homosexuals and Communists (odd bedfellows in several respects) were persecuted during WWII and after. Reference Joe McCarthy's (Republican from Wisconsin) drive to dig out communists from government, Hollywood, and the Ladies Aid society.

h. Richard Nixon's subversion of government in the Watergate scandal.

i. Ronald Reagan ignored the AIDS epidemic.

j. The plutocracy kept wages steady during 40 years (some with high inflation) further impoverishing the working class while enriching themselves even more.

And so on.

The arc of the future may bend towards greater justice and greater freedom, but it regularly snaps back to fostering less justice and less freedom.

Don't worry about how. Where there is a will, there is a way.

That's because you're apparently living under a rock. Zuckerberg - privacy, Koch - environment, Musk - labour rules.

The first two directly affect you, the last one if you'd work at Tesla. I forgot Bezos but I'm sure you never order via Amazon to avoid the continued exploitation of its personnel.

It's not that I can't point it out, it's that I expect someone to be moderately informed about the world to realise all this for yourself which makes any conversation with you tedious, so I'm gonna leave you to it and read the short stories instead. There will be more wisdom in those stories than in your posts.

As a Brit I may show some ignorance here, if so please forgive me!

1) How can the system work when the president cannot get his policies through Congress because his party has no majority? Surely the two arms of govt need to be elected on the same ballots, and so be working together. This partial paralysis seems to me to have worked against presidents of both parties. Who gains from it?

2) How can elected senators be allowed to be paid by the pro-gun lobby to advocate their views? In the UK any financial payment by outside interests to MPs is banned. This too perpetuates a paralysis and reduces politicians' power.

3) And now the Supreme Court seems - without being asked - to be deciding on legally relevant but political issues. How is this fair to voters? Another undermining of democracy?

1) How can the system work when the president cannot get his policies through Congress because his party has no majority? — Tim3003

Complicated. But the filibuster allows a minority in Senate to prevent discussion. There are ways around it but the Democrats have allowed the GOP to dominate.

2) How can elected senators be allowed to be paid by the pro-gun lobby to advocate their views? — Tim3003

This type of corruption is decried by US citizens in both parties. Sadly, the US Supreme Court call this kind of bribery, "free speech."

3) And now the Supreme Court seems - without being asked - to be deciding on legally relevant but political issues. — Tim3003

Biden talked about adding member to Supreme Court (perfectly constitutional) but dropped the issue. It is worth considering if nine people are enough to set legal principles for the entire nation.

You can do no more than to try to belittle me, whether to pad your weak theories or to make yourself feel better, but the fact remains that your oligarchs have not nor cannot shaft me. They do not have the power over me that you claim they do. I respect that you want to advocate for their employees and feel you know better how they should run their businesses, but the power I speak of is real and affects millions residing in particular jurisdictions.

So yes, maybe stick to fiction.

Here we agree.

So far the court's ruling on Citizens United v. FEC has turned what was once hyperbole into fact: we now live in an oligarchy, since propaganda is efficacious and money buys propaganda.

Yes, the US is basically an oligarchy. Biden, sadly, too scared to prosecute Trump.

The Supreme Court could allow states to re-implement abortion bans because it was a court decision that originally made it illegal to have bans of abortion.

If Congress had ever passed a bill making abortion illegal they couldn't do this. Basically, it was a right ensured by a court decision.

Now the Court could also have said a law ensuring the right to an abortion is unconstitutional, but that would face a much higher bar, and no such law existed.

As to the question of deadlock, its in large part due to two factors:

1. Representation in the Senate isn't based around population but around the arbitrary borders of US states. This means that some citizens have outsized representation relative to others and so widely unpopular actions can still have a majority of legislator's support.

2. In general we do elections as "whoever gets the most voters wins." Some states have runoffs, most don't. Very few states do ranked choice voting or instant run off voting. The way party candidates are selected for races is in party elections called "primaries." These are often closed elections where only party members can vote. They also have low turn out. Generally, older and more radical people are more likely to vote in the primaries.

The result is that third parties are generally not competitive and that the candidates from the two major parties tend to be far more radical than the median voter. So most voters being unhappy is sort of baked into the process as the winner of elections is often going to be the person who has the most support from their party's more radical elements. This isn't always the case, but it often is.


Any attempts to fix these problems is resisted by the people with the power to change how elections are held because they are less likely to stay in power if elections are changed to make the preferences of the median voter more likely to be reflected.

Government has never hurt me.

I guess government isn’t the problem after all.

Top notch logic.

—

What a stupid political ideology.

All your replies seem to echo my observation that the system doesn't quite work...

I agree with you that government is worse than the rich. However, don't you accept that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people dying from poverty? Don't you think a small increase in taxes for the likes of Zuckerberg, Koch, and Musk, would fix this? Don't you think this is the right thing to do?

Yes, I accept the former, but not the latter. I don’t think taking people’s money or property is the right thing to do. I don’t think advocating to take other people’s money and property is the right thing to do either. The right thing to do would be to help those in need.

I like the idea of no force threatened against peaceful people, but it doesn't feel right in this context.

Tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths v making the rich pay a little bit more.

Obviously those in poverty aren't being helped by other means. Do you have any suggestions?

And now the Supreme Court seems - without being asked - to be deciding on legally relevant but political issues. How is this fair to voters? — Tim3003

The Supreme Court was asked. How? In some court room, a few years ago, a judge made a decision and it was appealed to at the next higher court. Either the plaintiffs or the defense asked the court to reconsider. This process was repeated until the Supreme Court was asked to decide. It doesn't have to say yes -- it can say, "No -- there is no reason for us to review the case." Then the last higher court decision stands. It can also decide to settle the issue more broadly -- like it did a few years ago when it announced that gay marriage was a right in all states.

How you feel about the court depends on whose ox was just gored. The court upheld the constitutionality of Obama Care and the conservatives twisted in pain. The court decided that abortion was unconstitutional, and pro-choice people howled (and will for some time).

I'm at least a progressive and I loathe the conservative majority on the court, but I can remember when the progressives held a strong majority (like the Warren Court under CJ Earl Warren) was loathed by the right wing. There were billboards demanding that Earl Warren be impeached.

The Founding Organizers of the US government and political system kept their thumb on the scale in favor of an elite -- even an elected elite. Some of the FOs were frankly suspicious of "the people".

The first use of a filibuster (whatever they called it) was observed on September 22, 1789, when Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.”

I strongly disagree with making abortion illegal but isn't the US system sending the question of abortion legality to the state level? If a red state with a majority of people who are against abortion, isn't that democratic? The US democracy is garbage and I'd prefer if abortion was legal throughout the US for many reasons but idk if this is the best example of complaining about the US being undemocratic. There is that issue of many people in the US thinking abortion is immoral.


What a shame your partner-in-crime is not here, tragic. Perhaps you two could find a new forum to post in and move there together?