972

"Old and quite weird": Democrats finally discover new effective attack — and Republicans hate it (www.salon.com)

submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

278 comments fedilink hide all child comments

After nearly a decade of being forced to take Trump seriously, Democrats increasingly call BS on the whole charade

Sure, Donald Trump is a threat to democracy — a would-be dictator on day one who has called for terminating the U.S. Constitution so he can hold onto power even after losing a free and fair election. But while draped in the rhetoric of populism, Trump and his MAGA movement are not actually popular; the man himself has never won more votes than the person he ran against, a majority of Americans twice rejecting him and his off-putting cult of personality. That he was ever president is more or less because a few thousand swing voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania thought it would be fun.

President Joe Biden won in 2020 largely by promising to a return to normalcy and baseline competency. In 2024, Democrats are making a similar argument but more forcibly: They’re pointing, laughing and dismissing Trump and his circus as a total freak show to which we can’t return.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Vittelius@feddit.org 21 points 2 months ago

To add to that I'd like to quote Ian Danskin (aka Inuendo Studios) from his guest lecture about Gamergate at UC Merced:

Bob Altemeyer has this survey he uses to study authoritarianism. He divides respondents into people with low, average, and high authoritarian sentiments, and then tells them what the survey has measured and asks, “what score do you think is best to have: low, average, or high?”

People with low authoritarian sentiments say it’s best to be low. People with average authoritarian sentiments also say it’s best to be low. But people with high authoritarian sentiments? They say it’s best to be average. Altemeyer finds, across all his research, that reactionaries want to aggress, but only if it is socially acceptable. They want to know they are the in-group and be told who the out-group is. They don’t particularly care who the out-group is, Altemeyer finds they’ll aggress against any group an authority figure points to, even, if they don’t notice it, a group that contains them. They just have to believe the in-group is the norm.

https://innuendostudios.tumblr.com/post/660337457916706817/i-was-invited-to-give-a-talk-on-gamergate-over

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago

Great quote. It explains why they're especially sensitive to the idea that their position is not normal.

[-] Vittelius@feddit.org 14 points 2 months ago

exactly. In the next paragraph Ian even has some examples of how that works in modern day American conservative political culture:

Reactionary politics is rebellion against things they dislike getting normalized, because they know, if they are normalized, they will have to accept them. Because the thing they care about most is being normal.

This is why the echo chamber, this is why Fox News, this is why the Far Right insists they are the “silent majority.” This is why they artificially inflate their numbers. This is why they insist facts are “biased.” They have to maintain the image that what are, in material terms, fringe beliefs are, in fact, held by the majority. This is why getting mocked by Stephen Colbert was such a blow to GamerGate. It makes it harder to believe the world at large agrees with them.

This is why, if you’re trying to change the world for the better, it’s pointless to ask their permission. Because, if you change the world around them, they will adapt even faster than you will.

Honestly the whole talk is worth a listen. It's depressing because, well, it's about gamergate but it explains so much (and it's probably one of the parts of his alt right playbook series of video essays getting shared the least on social media

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah, that's really interesting. I think on the left there's more acceptance for being weird. In fact, I think that's one of the things the left fights for: the freedom to not be normal. If you're not hurting anybody, then nobody should care what you do.

This is probably what has led to the MAGA people being so deeply weird. The right is used to their neighbours policing them and keeping them from drifting too far from normal. The left generally doesn't care too much about normal. So, when the MAGA movement made the Republican base so weird, their neighbours were caught up in it, so they weren't criticizing the drift away from normal. The democrats didn't really care so much about the lack of "normality", but were instead focused on all the actual bad shit, like refusing to confirm Supreme Court justices, banning muslims from entering the US, etc. So, now pointing out how far from normal they've drifted is really having an effect.

[-] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago

You have to love the irony of the far right considering themselves the “silent” anything.

this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024

972 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19082 readers

3697 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News