#read autocracy recently

[pharmasrightarm]

just a couple of bros

[mariacallous]

This is a gift article

“In normal times, Americans don’t think much about democracy. Our Constitution, with its guarantees of free press, speech, and assembly, was written more than two centuries ago. Our electoral system has never failed, not during two world wars, not even during the Civil War. Citizenship requires very little of us, only that we show up to vote occasionally. Many of us are so complacent that we don’t bother. We treat democracy like clean water, something that just comes out of the tap, something we exert no effort to procure.

“But these are not normal times.”

I wrote those words in October 2020, at a time when some people feared voting, because they feared contagion. The feeling that “these are not normal times” also came from rumors about what Donald Trump’s campaign might do if he lost that year’s presidential election. Already, stories that Trump would challenge the validity of the results were in circulation. And so it came to pass.

This time, we are living in a much different world. The predictions of what might happen on November 5 and in the days that follow are not based on rumors. On the contrary, we can be absolutely certain that an attempt will be made to steal the 2024 election if Kamala Harris wins. Trump himself has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the results of the 2020 election. He has waffled on and evaded questions about whether he will accept the outcome in 2024. He has hired lawyers to prepare to challenge the results.

Trump also has a lot more help this time around from his own party. Strange things are happening in state legislatures: a West Virginia proposal to “not recognize an illegitimate presidential election” (which could be read as meaning not recognize the results if a Democrat wins); a last-minute push, ultimately unsuccessful, to change the way Nebraska allocates its electoral votes. Equally weird things are happening in state election boards. Georgia’s has passed a rule requiring that all ballots be hand-counted, as well as machine-counted, which, if not overturned, will introduce errors—machines are more accurate—and make the process take much longer. A number of county election boards have in recent elections tried refusing to certify votes, not least because many are now populated with actual election deniers, who believe that frustrating the will of the people is their proper role. Multiple people and groups are also seeking mass purges of the electoral rolls.

Anyone who is closely following these shenanigans—or the proliferation of MAGA lawsuits deliberately designed to make people question the legitimacy of the vote even before it is held—already knows that the challenges will multiply if the presidential vote is as close as polls suggest it could be. The counting process will be drawn out, and we may not know the winner for many days. If the results come down to one or two states, they could experience protests or even riots, threats to election officials, and other attempts to change the results.

This prospect can feel overwhelming: Many people are not just upset about the possibility of a lost or stolen election, but oppressed by a sensation of helplessness. This feeling—I can’t do anything; my actions don’t matter—is precisely the feeling that autocratic movements seek to instill in citizens, as Peter Pomerantsev and I explain in our recent podcast, Autocracy in America. But you can always do something. If you need advice about what that might be, here is an updated citizen’s guide to defending democracy.

Help Out on Voting Day—In Person

First and foremost: Register to vote, and make sure everyone you know has done so too, especially students who have recently changed residence. The website Vote.gov has a list of the rules in all 50 states, in multiple languages, if you or anyone you know has doubts. Deadlines have passed in some states, but not all of them.

After that, vote—in person if you can. Because the MAGA lawyers are preparing to question mail-in and absentee ballots in particular, go to a polling station if at all possible. Vote early if you can, too: Here is a list of early-voting rules for each state.

Secondly, be prepared for intimidation or complications. As my colleague Stephanie McCrummen has written, radicalized evangelical groups are organizing around the election. One group is planning a series of “Kingdom to the Capitol” rallies in swing-state capitals, as well as in Washington, D.C.; participants may well show up near voting booths on Election Day. If you or anyone you know has trouble voting, for any reason, call 866-OUR-VOTE, a hotline set up by Election Protection, a nonpartisan national coalition led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

If you have time to do more, then join the effort. The coalition is looking for lawyers, law students, and paralegals to help out if multiple, simultaneous challenges to the election occur at the county level. Even people without legal training are needed to serve as poll monitors, and of course to staff the hotline. In the group’s words, it needs people to help voters with “confusing voting rules, outdated infrastructure, rampant misinformation, and needless obstacles to the ballot box.”

If you live in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, you can also volunteer to help All Voting Is Local, an organization that has been on the ground in those states since before 2020 and knows the rules, the officials, the potential threats. It, too, is recruiting legal professionals, as well as poll monitors. If you don’t live in one of those states, you can still make a financial contribution.

Wherever you live, consider working at a polling station. All Voting Is Local can advise you if you live in one of its eight states, but you can also call your local board of elections. More information is available at PowerThePolls.org, which will send you to the right place. The site explains that “our democracy depends on ordinary people who make sure every election runs smoothly and everyone's vote is counted—people like you.”

Wherever you live, it’s also possible to work for one of the many get-out-the-vote campaigns. Consider driving people to the voting booth. Find your local group by calling the offices of local politicians, members of Congress, state legislators, and city councillors. The League of Women Voters and the NAACP are just two of many organizations that will be active in the days before the election, and on the day itself. Call them to ask which local groups they recommend. Or, if you are specifically interested in transporting Democrats, you can volunteer for Rideshare2Vote.

If you know someone who needs a ride, then let them know that the ride-hailing company Lyft is once again working with a number of organizations, including the NAACP, the National Council of Negro Women, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the National Council on Aging, Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote, and the Hispanic Federation. Contact any of them for advice about your location. Also try local religious congregations, many of whom organize rides to the polls.

Smaller gestures are needed too. If you see a long voting line, or if you find yourself standing in one, report it to Pizza to the Polls and the group will send over some free pizza to cheer everyone up.

Join Something Now

Many people have long been preparing for a challenge to the election and a battle in both the courts and the media. You can help them by subscribing to the newsletters of some of the organizations sponsoring this work, donating money, and sharing their information with others. Don’t wait until the day after the vote to find groups you trust: If a crisis happens, you will not want to be scouring the internet for information.

Among the organizations to watch is the nonpartisan Protect Democracy, which has already launched successful lawsuits to secure voting rights in several states. Another is the States United Democracy Center, which collaborates with police as well as election workers to make sure that elections are safe. Three out of four election officials say that threats to them have increased; in some states, the danger will be just as bad the day after the election as it was the day before, or maybe even worse.

The Brennan Center for Justice, based at NYU, researches and promotes concrete policy proposals to improve democracy, and puts on public events to discuss them. Its lawyers and experts are preparing not only for attempts to steal the election, but also, in the case of a Trump victory, for subsequent assaults on the Constitution or the rule of law.

For voters who lean Democratic, Democracy Docket also offers a wealth of advice, suggestions, and information. The group’s lawyers have been defending elections for many years. For Republicans, Republicans for the Rule of Law is a much smaller group, but one that can help keep people informed.

Talk With People

In case of a real disaster—an inconclusive election or an outbreak of violence—you will need to find a way to talk about it, including a way to speak with friends or relatives who are angry and have different views. In 2020, I published some suggestions from More in Common, a research group that specializes in the analysis of political polarization, for how to talk with people who disagree with you about politics, as well as those who are cynical and apathetic. I am repeating here the group’s three dos and three don’ts:

•Do talk about local issues: Americans are bitterly polarized over national issues, but have much higher levels of trust in their state and local officials. •Do talk about what your state and local leaders are doing to ensure a safe election. •Do emphasize our shared values—the large majority of Americans still feel that democracy is preferable to all other forms of government—and our historical ability to deliver safe and fair elections, even in times of warfare and social strife. •Don’t, by contrast, dismiss people’s concerns about election irregularities out of hand. Trump and his allies have repeatedly raised the specter of widespread voter fraud in favor of Democrats. Despite a lack of evidence for this notion, many people may sincerely believe that this kind of electoral cheating is real. •Don’t rely on statistics to make your case, because people aren’t convinced by them; talk, instead, about what actions are being taken to protect the integrity of the vote. •Finally, don’t inadvertently undermine democracy further: Emphasize the strength of the American people, our ability to stand up to those who assault democracy. Offer people a course of action, not despair.

As a Last Resort, Protest

As in 2020, protest remains a final option. A lot of institutions, including some of those listed above, are preparing to step in if the political system fails. But if they all fail as well, remember that it’s better to protest in a group, and in a coordinated, nonviolent manner. Many of the organizations I have listed will be issuing regular statements right after the election; follow their advice to find out what they are doing. Remember that the point of a protest is to gain supporters—to win others over to your cause—and not to make a bad situation worse. Large, peaceful gatherings will move and convince people more than small, angry ones. Violence makes you enemies, not friends.

Finally, don’t give up: There is always another day. Many of your fellow citizens also want to protect not just the electoral system but the Constitution itself. Start looking for them now, volunteer to help them, and make sure that they, and we, remain a democracy where power changes hands peacefully.

[jwood718]

A series of links led me to this: Southern Poverty Law Center's article and list of anti-LGBTQ+ groups active in the United States, and their influence on legislation in this country and internationally, and the increasing anti-trans rhetoric, and action, purveyed by them.

SPLC pulls no punches when calling-out people and groups that promote hate in the name of anything else (parents' rights, Christianity, etc) and the same goes here. The list is accompanied by a map featuring how many anti-LGBTQ+ groups are active in each state.

Some highlights:

"In 2023, the number of anti-LGBTQ hate groups listed by SPLC increased by about one-third, to 86. This is the highest number of anti-LGBTQ groups SPLC has ever listed. The increase is largely the result of the activities by groups often described as 'family policy councils,' which operate at the state level in ways that mimic the national organizations Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom...

...the weaponization of pseudoscience as a tool of trans suppression and the targeting of fundamental freedoms like free speech, expression, and assembly through book and drag bans has become a more prominent feature in recent years...

In April 2023, the Heritage Foundation published its 'Mandate for Leadership,' a 900-page handbook that lays out the implementation strategy of its presidential transition plan known as 'Project 2025.' The project represents a dramatic reshaping of the federal government by recruiting and vetting conservative ideologues for positions in a hypothetical 2025 Republican presidential administration. It also represents a dramatic confirmation of the anti-science and anti-LGBTQ focus of the contributors to the plan. Namely, on page 1 of the Mandate for Leadership, Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation claims that 'children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries.' By page 5, Roberts claims, 'pornography' is 'manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children' and argues that such manifestations be outlawed. Roberts also argues that 'the people who produce and distribute [such materials] should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.'"

And of course it gets better. I didn't know, but am not surprised to read, that anti-trans rhetorical hate has now been morphed into a version of the "great replacement" conspiracy theory: children, including children of gay or lesbian couples, "...are being replaced or 'transed' against their will by gender-affirming health care and LGBTQ-inclusive educational curricula."

Fuck: anything to rile up people and get them to vote in autocracy.

Full story

[reasonsforhope]

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has galvanized Ukrainian society in many unexpected ways, but perhaps one of the most remarkable is how it has advanced the rights of LGBTQ people.

On Tuesday, in a move that would have been nearly unthinkable a year ago, a Ukrainian lawmaker introduced legislation in the country’s parliament that would give partnership rights to same-sex couples. This legislation, along with a prohibition against anti-LGBTQ hate speech abruptly adopted in December, reflects a sharp rejection of Russia’s effort to weaponize homophobia in support of its invasion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said repeatedly that he attacked Ukraine last year partly to protect “traditional values” against the West’s “false values” that are “contrary to human nature” — code for LGBTQ people. Perhaps he hoped this would rally conservative Ukrainians to Russia’s side — it’s a tactic Kremlin allies have tried repeatedly over the past decade. But this time, it instead appears to be convincing a growing number of Ukrainians to support equality and reject the values Putin espouses.

--

Recent History

I could not have imagined the LGBTQ movement building such momentum when I first visited Ukraine as a reporter in 2013. Ukraine was then on the verge of consummating its long-negotiated “association agreement” with the European Union, a step Russian President Vladimir Putin bitterly opposed. As the deadline to sign the agreement approached, an oligarch close to Putin funded a campaign with billboards reading, “Association with EU means same-sex marriage.” Anti-EU protesters dubbed the EU “Gayropa.”

This effort failed to dissuade Ukrainians from a European path...

But the past decade has also seen Ukrainians standing firm in their commitment to democracy, and a growing understanding that this includes protections for fundamental rights.

There was an explosion of organizing by LGBTQ people in the years that followed the Revolution of Dignity, and some slow advances were made. But it’s been the stories of queer Ukrainians fighting and dying in the war with Russia that have truly helped other Ukrainians to see them as full citizens.

Pictured: Territorial Defense member Romanova shows a unicorn insignia, a mythical creature that has become a symbol of the LGBTQ community. This patch, which depicts a "valiant" unicorn breathing fire, has become the unofficial symbol of Ukraine's LGBTQ+ military.

Today

Ukraine’s current LGBTQ rights debate is unprecedented; never before has a country under siege had such visibly out soldiers who have so few formal rights under their own country’s laws. LGBTQ rights supporters have successfully framed the question on same-sex partnership as whether Ukraine will recognize LGBTQ people as equal citizens, which has become the norm throughout much of the European Union, as well as North and South America. They are successfully flipping the proposition that, as one Ukrainian politician once infamously put it, that “a gay cannot be a patriot.” ...

“I actually think that the Russians did a good job in terms of raising awareness and changing attitudes towards the LGBT community in Ukraine,” Sovsun told me in an interview. “The more Russia insists on [homophobia] being a part of their state policy, the more rejection of this policy [there] is from inside Ukraine.”

The aspiration of many Ukrainians to join the European Union has also helped move more Ukrainians to become supportive of queer peoples’ rights, as Ukraine attempts to define itself as a European democracy in contrast to Russian autocracy. A study conducted last May by the Ukrainian LGBTQ organization “Nash Svit” and the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found nearly 64 percent of Ukrainians said queer people should have equal rights. Even among respondents who said they had a “negative” view of LGBTQ people, nearly half said they still supported equal rights.

The current push for same-sex partnership rights began with a school teacher from Zaporizhzha named Anastasia Andriivna Sovenko. In June, Sovenko registered a petition with Ukraine’s government demanding same-sex couples be granted partnership rights. It said simply, “At this time, every day can be the last. Let people of the same sex get the opportunity to start a family and have an official document to prove it. They need the same rights as traditional couples.”

Sovenko said she was inspired to file the petition after reading a story about different-sex couples getting married before one partner went off to war. It felt unfair to her that queer people couldn’t take the same step to protect their rights. Signatures quickly poured in, stunning even Sovenko herself...

Under Ukrainian law, the president is required to formally respond to any petition that gets 25,000 signatures, and the partnership petition quickly cleared that threshold. But in a sign that the politics of the issue remains complicated, Zelenskyy ruled out full marriage rights in his response, arguing that this required a constitutional change that could not be carried out under the rules of martial law. Instead, [Zelensky] punted to the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, to examine the creation of civil unions. His language implied support, but he stopped short of using presidential powers to make it a reality.

“Every citizen is an inseparable part of civil society, he is entitled to all the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said in the referral."

-via Politico, 3/7/23

Notes:

While the fight is still ongoing, I can't underlie enough how massive this shift in public opinion is. Russia and Ukraine have generally been incredibly unsafe places to be LGBTQ, including in very recent history. This is huge, and it sounds like it will only get bigger.

This could also help bring about a wider sea change throughout Eastern Europe, which in general has a very pervasive culture of homophobia, often tied in with both religious conservatism and ethno-nationalistic conflict, though thankfully things have been improving significantly over the last decade.

[jewishfem]

by siding with fascist rhetoric to suit your hatred of trans people

I do not side with fascist rhetoric.

According to Wikipedia, fascism is a “far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race,” and none applies to who I'm siding with.

far-right: radical feminism, which is what I ascribe to the most (though not completely) is a leftist movement in the way they oppose conservative notions about the female sex, which unfortunately have recently been re-adopted by many leftist circles.

authoritarian: the group which I, according to your view, belong to encourages listening and reading things written by the other sides; silencing women is unacceptable in theory and is criticized when practiced. It doesn't silence males either, it simply doesn't include them.

Ultranationalist: radical feminism views nationalism (and by this, also ultranationalism) in a very critical and negative way. It does so imperialism and militarism as well.

Dictatorial leader: there are no dictatorial leaders to radical feminism, neither does gender critique have such leaders.

Centralized autocracy: there is no regime to gender critique and radical feminism. Can you name an autocrat?

Militaristism: as said before, radical feminism condemns the militaries in the world, not only as opposition to nationalism, but also because of the misogyny in these organizations and bodies, the fact that soldiers not rarely rape women of the enemy side and even among the ranks. Abolition of the military is not a central part of radical feminism, but it definitely is critiques regardless.

Suppression of opposition: this is pure projection. Doctors and other professionals who dare rejecting the ideas of the trans/gender movement (be it hrt or surgeries) are threatened with losing their jobs. Women like jkr who merely stated sex is real was bombarded with violent, disgusting, and absolutely vile threats and messages. Every disagreement with trans/gender claims are referred to as transphobic. Meanwhile gender critical people and radical feminists learn from critique of their work and respond rather than silence.

Belief in natural social hierarchy: gender critique and radical feminism go exactly against that and claim the social hierarchy between men and women is extremely unnatural. Many radfems and gender critics also see other social class hierarchies as unnatural, though that activism is not within the bounds of either gender critique nor feminism (women's liberation), but rather other ideologies like marxism and the likes.

subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race: radical feminism and gender critique do not belong to any state nor race, these are merely ideologies and movements inspired by these ideas. They view racism as a separate form of oppression which intersects with feminism, but also believe that feminist struggle is not about liberation of or the erasing of race, because it's focused, as said before on women and girls' liberation.

I highly recommend you read through blogs such as @radicallyaligned which, in my opinion, is the bestsource for learning about radical feminism and gender critique.

You'll realize we do not hate trans people as a whole, we hate individuals like Dana Rivers, Eli Erlick, and Stacie-Marie Laughton among very many others fetishists, pedophiles, and other perverts. We hate those spewing rape threatsband idolization of it. Here are some articles (last reblog has working links afaik), plus of course, these:

Rape:

Sexual harassment idolization:

Silencing:

Misc:

As said, if you want to learn more about gender critique and radical feminism, check out the blog i mentioned. If you wish to learn more about what we hate about the gender ideology, aside from prominent males there having been accused or charged with sexual and other violent crimes, just ask. I didn't want to include all the HRT studies and the likes so this answer doesn't get too long. I know you don't send these asks bona fide, but i don't mind having a debate over that.

[sigridstumb]

Make your plan to survive U.S. authoritarianism now

I recently read Radly Balko's latest newsletter, Lines in the Sand, and I urge you to do so as well.

Trump and his people are clearly stating, in interviews, how they will establish an authoritarian regime and who they will use the power of the state to punish. I know it's not a hundred percent, but if you are reading this on my Tumblr, you are probably one of the people the second Trump regime wants to silence, punish, and/or eradicate.

Three senators and nine members of the House are prepared to pursue a Trump autocracy. He has a plan this time to gut the bureaucratic infrastructure of the federal government and replace career workers with political flunkies who will do whatever he wants.

It's going to be a nightmare if he wins. Which he is slated to do as of right now. Do everything you can to prevent this, if you are in the U.S. Get out the vote. Door-knock. Organize. Join your union, or try to form one. Meet your neighbors. Prepare to take people in. Vote. Vote. Vote.

Good luck to us all.

[warsofasoiaf]

What's you're opinions about Bernie Sanders? He's the only modern day politician who i can resonate with along with on the wild fields of American politics, even when I as a person isn't American itself.

Overwhelmingly negative. I'm already distrustful of solidarity-based politics in general and find socialism to be a failed economic system, so it's perhaps unsurprising that I'm so negative.

Sanders largely provides superficial readings of economic woes and has largely ineffective proposals for dealing with them. Modern populism on both sides of the fence is long on style and short on substance, and Sanders is no exception. Sanders can shout "billionaires" and "capitalism" until he turns red into the face, but his policy proposals are flimsy and unlikely to help the working class that he purports to fight for.

While progressive economic policy is largely a contradiction in terms at best, in recent times the progressive movement has largely been dominated by intellectual pseudoscience movements like MMT, which I've spoken before about the failures of here and here. The theory lacks a credible theory of inflation and relies instead on a vibes-based greedflation thesis, which is intellectually exhilarating because it foists the blame on those evil businesses, but factually false. When the MMT'ers were given broad control over monetary policy, their large-scale printing of money helped precipitate the 2021 inflationary crisis, and they ignored every single conventional economist saying that this was precisely what would happen. Worse, the proponents of the theory are not cognizant of the inflationary effects of their theory despite the empirical evidence both historically and recently - and their policy proposal to reinstitute broad price controls as a solution to the 2021-2023 inflationary crisis simply shows a lack of effective and workable policy solutions to economic problems (and was a chutzpah defense if I've ever heard one). So with a refusal to create testable models and a stunning lack of receptivity to empirical data, it's not likely to produce rational or effective policy. Contrarily, conventional macroeconomic wisdom proved effective in taming inflation while avoiding recession - it's actually quite remarkable how effective it has been.

However, if his economic policy is bad, his foreign policy is downright atrocious, and even among Bernie supporters, most of them tend to gloss over his foreign policy failures (and during 2016, he largely directed people to ignore foreign policy questions). I've repeatedly made the joke that Sanders is the most enthusiastic supporter of Latin American autocracy since Henry Kissinger, but it's actually not hyperbolic. Sanders has routinely gone to bat for dictators in Latin America provided they're left-wing and repeats their talking points regardless of how true they are. He's gone so far as to raise money for Daniel Ortega even after it was made clear that the money was going toward his campaign of shooting and bombing Native American populations and openly celebrating Ortega's jailing of opposition journalists. He's made mention of reconsidering our relationship with the Saudis due to their human rights violations, but when the dictator is left-wing, suddenly Sanders's firmly-held principles and "moral foreign policy" go out the window.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[pluralsword]

Upcoming Chapter 18 of Addendum

For everyone waiting on Chapter 18, we made a lot of headway on it recently, it is 2/3rds done currently :3 Hope and plan to release soon. Most of this chapter is a Rampage point of view (who we write as transmasc and his sister Trans-Mutate as transfemme, both part of the Anti-Functionist resistance known as the Delta League or the Anti-Vocationist League, back during the era of the autocracy of Nova Prime. the art we posted here is an edit of a larger piece from chapter 13), it's really amusing to us to write from his perspective how idw1 optimus early in the Great War has no way to conceive of a transmasculine cybertronian because that's the level of conceptual damage and societal harm the legacy of functionism has caused with it's pushing for an androcentric world of only cybertronian maleness as genderlessness assigned guys.

If you haven't heard of Addendum (an IDW1 Arcee novel fanfic) and are wondering what we're on about, you can check it out here and read the released chapters here, and here's a blurb over generalities of what the fic is:

It is a fanfic revolving around IDW1 Arcee, that seeks to add to her already detailed and beautiful arc of a trans woman errant warrior sage coming to terms with xemself (we're affirming her/xem in the text here since in this fic unlike canon xey eventually want to use xey pronouns too but face immense challenges to that as the story will show) and deciding to trust people and herself. We love her transformations very dearly, and wanted to further reconcile xeir appearance in Spotlight: Arcee with her later writing (canon did a rather fabulous job in this respect in Phase 2 and 3 that makes rereading her story from first issue in 2008 to last a real joy for us), drawing on wisdom gathered through study and experience, and imagination to connect the dots. As you can tell just from the appearance of Codexa and others in the story, this revisiting of IDW1 Arcee’s tale is in part made possible by later writing of gal transformers who we adore, and we will note we draw from ones from all across the decades of fiction of Transformers. What can we say, we love them, and know so much more about ourselves than we ever would have because of them. There are also a lot of trans / gender expansive headcanons tossed in here for bots across the gender spectrum. They're transformers. Emphasis on trans.

[spiderlegsmusic]

Weaponized incompetence isn’t a thing. Sorry…there are people with severe brain traumatic injuries who are lucky they don’t shit themselves because they no longer have short term memories and if they ask you for a list please be patient with them because they literally don’t remember what they did yesterday.

Yes, I’m speaking about me because I like being helpful around the house but I’ve lost the ability to retain anything I learn over the past year and a half, since I had my brain bleed (a form of aneurysm) my “incompetence” stems from the inability to retain recent memories.

Why don’t we talk about weaponizing terms to overstate hurdles for roommates, partners, lovers, whatever in getting along. Just because someone doesn’t clean as diligently as you do or asks your for a list so they can be more thorough helping around the house, it’s not an attack. Weaponized is a specific “attack” term. Using it figuratively instead of literally is a mistake. When someone can’t do something as well as you do, they aren’t attacking you. Their incompetence isn’t Weaponized. In the old days people would say they aren’t as good at cleaning or don’t see something as dirty like a neat freak does.

I enjoy cleaning to be honest, but let’s say you’re going shopping and I’m staying home to clean and we haven’t been living together long, asking you what you consider clean and asking for a list of what you expect to be done by the time you get home isn’t an attack. Stop using “Weaponized (anything)” just because you don’t get what you want. Forgetting to vacuum isn’t an attack on you. It’s just regular incompetence. Try being easier to get along with.

Ok so I haven’t experienced this term thrown at me personally but I’ve seen, read, heard it misused like crazy. I guess I expect to the first time I do something wrong in a domestic setting. People getting mad at someone who wants to help, tries to help, but doesn’t help to the level the other person expects and since this the age of new made up terms (thanks psychology, you’re doing a great job! More depressed people now than ever in history—we need more bullshit terms!), then they get accused of weaponizing their inability to clean as well as the other person. It’s ridiculous.

We have an asshole running for president who wants to destroy democracy. They have already begun taking our rights away from us. Women in my state used to the right to determine healthcare for themselves. The bad guys took that right away. I think maybe we should focus more on taking our rights back and codifying them rather than focusing on bullshit psychobabble terms meant to divide people. If you focus on divisive language instead of unifying language, you are shooting yourselves in the foot.

If trump wins, terms like Weaponized incompetence will be the least of your worries. Start thinking of what terms like authoritarian, autocracy, dictatorship, detention camps mean…

[kryptonitecore]

Re-Read: Transformers: Primacy

Primacy is a bit of a disappointing way to end this trilogy, as I think it’s the weakest part - it continues some of the ideas of Autocracy and Monstrosity, but what really killed it for me was the characterisation. The challenges to Optimus’ character are rapidly eroded, but it’s Hot Rod/Rodimus and Megatron who are really in trouble.

Hot Rod shows up, having apparently completed Autobot training in the background, and is now completely and unambiguously in support of Optimus. Any skepticism regarding the Autobot cause and its connections to the old Senate have disappeared while he was off page, and his actively Decepticon-leaning sympathies have also disappeared right along with it. In fact, to prove that Hot Rod has moved on, there is a brief and mostly one-sided confrontation with Slinger, his friend and one of the few survivors of Nyon, who has recently joined the Decepticons. Rather than dig into this, the writer makes Slinger abruptly hostile and he disappears from the book until he can be brought back for a death scene where he confesses how wrong he was. (Slinger and Fasttrack can both join the ‘former friend to Decepticon to corpse’ club!). Facetiousness aside, I think the real issue was the feeling that this story wanted Hot Rod to be a different kind of character than Autocracy and Monstrosity had created - for example, pairing up Grimlock and Hot Rod as grizzled veteran and inexperienced, optimistic kid just does not work for me considering Hot Rod’s past as an insurgent, everything that happened to Nyon, etc. I just feel that once you’ve been forced to destroy an entire city, you may no longer qualify for ingenue roles.

Megatron is similarly a point of strange characterisation. Characters making mistakes is not necessarily a problem, but having a supposedly intelligent, strategic character who is intended to serve as a major villain repeatedly make daft choices? Less good, and it is especially not good when the behaviour of the character is described differently from what actually happens in the story. The writers continue to define Megatron’s version of villainy in terms of dominance and control, the implication (to me, at least) being that he is precise and focused in a way that other villains, like Scorponok, were not. However, Megatron’s actual behaviour and dialogue in the comic does not live up to that - he repeatedly takes massive risks or makes obvious tactical errors, relies on fear and blunt, brutal tactics, and can be quite self-indulgent. Although obviously mistakes and character flaws are fine, I think the writers settled for mistakes that were just too, too obvious in terms of tactics and created a bit of a clash between what they wanted Megatron to be and where the plot actually took the character.

First up, there is the decision to place Pentius’ spark inside of Trypticon. Megatron is aware that Pentius is actively malevolent, but seems to find no potential drawbacks to placing his spark inside the most powerful physical body available and only afterwards does he apparently think to ask ‘How am I to trust you?’. He is then shocked when the evil alien whom he had been able to control on Junkion because Pentius was literally a head on a chain, can suddenly be far more independent and dangerous when placed into a giant hell-dinosaur. Later things are smaller, but moments like Megatron only realising that acid rain would damage his air force as well as the Autobots’ halfway through a battle added to the impression that the writers were scrambling for a way to end the series quickly.

Optimus fares better. For example, his enjoyment of the mission to the pole has interesting implications for his tendency to isolate himself, but the flaws or challenges that gave him a lot of texture in Autocracy and Monstrosity have been shaved down - his main personal issue in this book seems to be a generalised sense of the pressure that comes with leadership. Compared to the Optimus of Monstrosity, this is a very smooth Optimus. Overall, the story seems more interested in propping up Optimus as the hero - Omega Supreme’s interactions with him spring to mind - but that comes at the cost of the specificity that previous books had given the character, which is a shame, as I think they helped me appreciate him more.

In fact, a lack of specificity is the cause of a lot of my problems with this book. The battles between Trypticon and Metroplex are so huge that it is difficult to really engage with them, they take place on a disaster movie scale, but named characters are in little danger and I wasn't attached enough to Iacon or Harmonex to really feel their destruction. Other threats are similarly poorly defined, like Pentius, and resolved through vague solutions, like Optimus showing Megatron the Matrix, which apparently removes or destroys Pentius' spark or its connection to Megatron for reasons that are sort of unclear.

There are still things to enjoy about this book and I fully intend to read it again at some point, but the plot holes and characterisation are glaring enough that it is definitely weaker than its predecessors.

Well, that was the last of the -acies series and I’m actually glad I read them, even if this last instalment didn’t do as much for me. Time to move on to Spotlight: Thundercracker!

[nicklloydnow]

“Watching events unfold this weekend in Israel, I thought back to a feeling that I first felt more than two months ahead of Russia launching its war in Ukraine. That same sense of dread is, if nothing, more firmly entrenched in my chest today. The feeling is still nebulous. It’s as if we are all watching a catastrophic car crash and simply don’t have the vocabulary to describe it.

(…)

“Autocracy versus democracy” does not usefully describe the moment. It feels like a discarded line from some kind of late-night brainstorming session. Its purpose was ostensibly to organize thinking — to name a threat and to allow for collective action. In the cold light of day, it reads like self-regard.

(…)

But many woke up on Saturday to the palpable fear of a real threat. Towns and small cities overrun by well-organized militia. Scores of civilians shot dead. Hostages abducted. As I write this on Monday night, the IDF is still fighting battles in Israeli population centers. Soon enough, it will be waging a Stalingrad-like fight in Gaza, doling out horrific human costs in pursuit of retribution. And that’s if no other nasty surprises are looming. The prevailing consensus is that 9/11 is the correct historical parallel for Israel. If Hezbollah enters the fight in the coming days, the 1973 Yom Kippur War will be a more apt comparison.

(…)

No, it’s not about democracy versus autocracy. The wheels are coming off. Our predecessors bequeathed to us a period of unprecedented tranquility. They were not infinitely wise in getting us here — no wiser than we are. But we grew up used to it in ways they could never imagine. We assumed order was normality, that peace was what naturally arose when power-hungry hyperpowers minded their own business. A better and more just world was there for the taking, if only we were moral enough to push for it.

The overarching metaphor in one of Robert Kagan’s recent books is fundamentally correct: order is a garden to be tended, but the jungle is the norm. I still hold that his moralistic “authoritarianism versus democracy” paradigm is misguided. Morality has nothing to do with it. Pessimism about progress — a conviction that nothing is permanent — is a far better guide.

My friend and former colleague Walter Russell Mead penned a prescient column earlier this year. He put his finger on the failings of the Biden administration’s fundamentally optimistic worldview. He pointed out that China, Russia and Iran are eating away at the existing order.

From the outset, the administration knew that the American-led world system was in trouble, but it underestimated the severity of the threat and misunderstood its causes . . . Two years later, the Biden administration is struggling to manage the failure of its original design . . . Russia isn’t parked, Iran isn’t pacified, and the three revisionists are coordinating their strategy and messaging to an unprecedented degree.

The Biden folks really are the third Obama administration. They fundamentally believe that the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice. At the limit, they see our primary task is to make sure we don’t stand in the way.

It’s time to abandon those good feelings. Our holiday from history is over. Or at least it needs to be over.

The Wall Street Journal ran a strong editorial today calling on the United States to get on a solid war footing. I’ve made a similar case for months now. Given how the Ukraine War has progressed, I’ve argued that President Biden needs to stand in front of the nation and tell the American people that the free lunch is over. We can no longer enjoy the massive “peace dividend” we reaped in 1991. It’s time to embrace that the world is dangerous and unforgiving. Prepare for the storms that are coming.

(…)

The Europeans were perhaps rattled in the first weeks of the war, when everyone thought Kyiv would fall in a fortnight. Even German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was saying how German thinking about security was undergoing an epochal transformation. That didn’t last. And even reports that Russia is by some measures now militarily outproducing both the United States and Europe combined hasn’t altered the mood.

Make no mistake, this isn’t just European decadence. We here in the United States are no less complacent. We talk about shared values and how we must support the Ukrainians until the end. But (not-so) secretly, we are glad that they are dying instead of us. Apart from a handful of military veterans and foolhardy enthusiasts, there are a vanishingly few people putting their lives on the line for a common moral cause. Though we say this is our fight, it’s really not.

Why? We come full circle. “Democracy” is not a real cause, “autocracy” is not a real threat. Or, to put it more carefully, that binary does not resonate today in ways that would have you put your life on the line. Not in the way it did during the Cold War, anyway. Safe peaceful street protests against domestic despots-in-waiting? Sign me up. I’d love to re-enact 1989. But as a unifying narrative with real stakes? It’s misaligned. It misidentifies the problem in some non-trivial way. Everyone feels that disconnect, and shrugs when it is invoked. This is not an assertion, just an empirical observation.

But something is happening. I feel it. I think many others feel it. The jungle is growing back. And we naive civilized folks, we couldn’t even start a fire without matches, much less feed or defend ourselves in the wilderness.”

“The larger context is that the U.S. and its allies now face two regional wars provoked by rogue states that are increasingly aligned. Israel and Ukraine are on the front lines, but the risk of an expanded conflict is real. Iran is feeding weapons into Vladimir Putin’s invasion in Ukraine. Mr. Putin is a junior partner of the Chinese Communist Party, which could try to exploit the moment in the Pacific.

The strategic and political point is that the return of war against Israel isn’t an isolated event. It’s the latest installment in the unraveling of global order as American political will and military primacy are called into question.

The President now has an obligation to increase the defense budget and stop treating the U.S. military as a political wedge to feed the American welfare state. For three years Mr. Biden has proposed cuts in defense spending after inflation, even as the world has become more dangerous.

The President can stop the budget games—the demands that every dollar on U.S. forces be matched with another for solar panels or food stamps—and work with Republicans to rebuild U.S. military power. That package should include aid for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. It should feature a generational effort to expand U.S. munitions inventories, from 155mm artillery to sophisticated long-range antiship missiles. Ditto for a plan to build more U.S. attack submarines for the Pacific.

Already officials are leaking that the U.S. may struggle to supply both Israel and Ukraine with artillery or other weapons while also deterring China. But America can either meet the moment or regret it later when the world’s rogues attack other allies, or U.S. forces deployed abroad, or even the homeland.

(…)

As for Republicans in Congress, they will have to get serious about governing and elect a new Speaker with dispatch. They need to isolate the Steve Bannon acolytes who treat shutting down the government for no good reason like a personal power play. Americans may be among Hamas’s hostages, and the GOP should support Mr. Biden if he sends a military mission to rescue them. The world needs to see that the U.S. can unite in a common security purpose.

(…)

The growing global disorder is a result in part of American retreat, not least Mr. Biden’s departure from Afghanistan that told the world’s rogues the U.S. was preoccupied with its internal divisions. But too many Republicans are also falling for the siren song of isolationism and floating a defense cut in the name of fiscal restraint. The Hamas invasion should blow up dreams the U.S. can “focus on China” and write off other parts of the world.

Donald Trump didn’t rebuild U.S. defenses as much as he claims, and his political competitors should say so. Former Vice President Mike Pence was correct when he said over the weekend that the awful scenes abroad are what happens when political leaders are ��signaling retreat from America’s role as leader of the free world.” Nikki Haley sounded similar notes.

They seem to know what time it is. The rest of Washington needs an alarm clock.”

“Exactly 37 years ago, on a bleak outlook overlooking the Atlantic, the two remaining Cold Warriors met in Reykjavik and proposed the almost unthinkable — to rid the world of all nuclear weapons.

Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev began a dialogue that set in motion a series of summits that would ultimately not achieve this bold objective but resulted in what many historians cite as the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

However, the question remains: to what end?

While the Cold War came to a close, the threat of nuclear war did not. The global nuclear arsenal had reached its peak in 1986 with over 63,000 weapons in circulation compared to 12,500 today, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

But the number of missiles is immaterial, as today’s weaponry is five times more lethal than Big Boy and Fat Man — the two bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WWII.

In addition, the range and mobility of the current arsenal have expanded significantly with the ability to reach any destination — from London to Moscow to Washington — in a matter of minutes, wiping out millions of people instantaneously.

(…)

The subsequent arms race that ensued between America and the Soviet Union led to the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD, that served to handcuff both sides with the premise that “if you fire on me, I’ll fire on you.”

A flawed concept to be sure. Yet the MAD strategy (which it truly is) remains the primary nuclear conflict deterrent today.

Adding to this MADness is the nonchalant manner that a large part of the world has adopted toward the threat of a nuclear conflict.

The possibility has shifted to the back of our collective psyches allowing us to focus on more important issues crowding our agenda.

A case in point is the most recent Republican presidential debate. While there were several questions around Taiwan and Ukraine, there was no specific reference to the “what if” of a nuclear engagement.

(…)

As a child of the Cold War, I can still remember the air raid drills in my community and hiding under my school desk.

That clear and present danger had lurked over the civilised world’s head but has since dissipated into the ether.

One would hope bright minds in political capitals around the world are gaming how to avoid a nuclear conflict.

But that notion calls to mind a moment when President Reagan after being briefed on the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction posed the simplest of questions, “What is Plan B?” to which his advisors had no answer.

And today as we celebrate their famous meeting in Iceland almost four decades later it is time again to ask our leaders — “What is plan B?””

[mariacallous]

Though experts have pointed out the pervasiveness of violence in U.S. political history, this particular election—held in the shadow of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and marked by multiple assassination attempts on Republican nominee and former President Donald Trump—doesn’t feel normal. Americans can no longer take a peaceful transition of power for granted.

With even pollsters declaring the contest too close to call, Foreign Policy wanted to do something useful in the waning days of the presidential campaign. We decided to see if other countries might have lessons for the United States on how to navigate through such a charged moment.

Countries experiencing political violence tend to have two factors in common, Barbara F. Walter, a scholar of civil war at the University of California, San Diego, told FP’s Ravi Agrawal recently. The first is anocracy—“just a fancy political science term for a partial democracy” with elements of autocracy, Walter said. The second factor that Walter outlined is whether those partial democracies are “mainly organized around race, religion, or ethnicity and not around ideology.”

The stories from countries featured in this package are drawn from four continents, but you will recognize both of these descriptions—or elements of them—throughout. Before getting to the solutions for the specter of electoral violence that these countries can offer, we also wanted to assess whether widespread fears of violence around the Nov. 5 election are well founded. Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago who studies Americans’ attitudes toward democracy, thinks that the country is indeed living through an “extraordinary era of political violence.”

Read on to find out why Pape thinks that support for political violence has grown sharply over the last few years, and keep scrolling to hear from regional experts about how Brazil, Ethiopia, Northern Ireland, and Sri Lanka managed to find a path out of polarization.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

What the Rioters in Brazil Learned From Americans

Jair Bolsonaro’s supporters showed that antidemocratic revolutions can be contagious too.

We memorize its opening sentences in school, throw quotes from it into speeches, and generally treat the American Declaration of Independence as a familiar source of reliable tropes. But when it was published in 1776, the declaration was a radical document, and its language inspired other radical documents. In 1789, French revolutionaries published the Declaration of the Rights of Man, declaring that “men are born and remain free and equal in rights.” In 1804, the leaders of the Haitian slave rebellion proclaimed the Haitian Declaration of Independence, vowing that “in the end we must live independent or die.”

The American Revolution also inspired scores of democratic and anti-colonial revolutionaries. Simón Bolívar, remembered as the Liberator in half a dozen South American countries, visited Washington, New York, Boston, and Charleston in 1807 and later recalled that “during my short visit to the United States, for the first time in my life, I saw rational liberty at first hand.” Visits to the U.S. inspired independence leaders from across Africa and Asia, and they still do. Would-be democrats from Myanmar and Venezuela to Zimbabwe and Cambodia reside in the United States, and study the institutions of the United States, even today.

That tradition was broken, not just by the Trump administration but by the claque of men around Donald Trump who began dreaming of a different kind of American influence. Not democratic, but autocratic. Not in favor of constitutions and the rule of law, but in support of insurrection and chaos. Not through declarations of independence but through social-media trolling campaigns. Many of the actual achievements of this claque have been negligible or, more likely, exaggerated for the purposes of fundraising. Steve Bannon once implied he had influence in Spain, for example, but actual members of the Spanish far right laughed at that idea when I asked them about it in 2019. Bannon’s attempt to set up some kind of alternative, far-right university in Italy ended in failure. At their conferences, on their social-media platforms, and on their countless YouTube channels, the leaders of what one might call the Autocracy International often seek to present themselves as the enemies of communism—even as most of the actual people who really do fight communism, whether in China or Cuba, keep their distance.

In Brazil, the Autocracy International has finally had a “success.” Although public institutions in the country’s capital have been attacked before, most recently in 2013, today’s events in Brasília contained some new elements. Notably, some of the protesters who today sacked the Brazilian Congress, presidential palace, and supreme court; beat up police officers; and broke security barriers were holding up signs in English, as if to speak to their fans and fellow flamethrowers in the U.S. The phrases #BrazilianSpring and #BrazilWasStolen have been spreading on Brazilian social media, again in English, as if some American public-relations company were pushing them. There are clear links, some via radical Catholic organizations, among far-right groups in Latin America, Europe, and the United States. Not long ago, members of some of those movements, including ex-President Jair Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo, met at a special edition of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Mexico City.

Continue reading.

[xipiti]

The Guardrails Failed. Now It’s Down to Us.

-Jamelle Bouie, NYT 10-25-24

Mark Milley is not the only general to call Donald Trump a fascist.

“Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that,” John Kelly, the former Marine general who served as Trump’s chief of staff, said during a recent interview with my colleague Michael Schmidt. “So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.”

Kelly even went as far as reading a definition of “fascism” to prove his point. “Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” he said.

Those are the kinds of things, Kelly added, that Trump “thinks would work better in terms of running America.”

And while he is not a general, Mark Esper, Trump’s onetime secretary of defense, told CNN that he thinks the public should take the former president “seriously” when he raises the possibility of using the military against American citizens.

“I think President Trump has learned the key is getting people around you who will do your bidding, who will not push back, who will implement what you want to do,” Esper said.

“And I think he’s talked about that, his acolytes have talked about that, and I think loyalty will be the first litmus test,” Esper added. He also said, following Kelly’s remarks, that Trump “has those inclinations,” meaning toward fascism.

Mark Milley. John Kelly. Mark Esper. Two generals. Three high-ranking officials in the Trump administration. Men with intimate knowledge of Trump’s impulses and private behavior. And here they are, in the crucial weeks before the election, telling the American public — explicitly and without euphemism — that their former boss is a would-be autocrat who will, if given the chance, plunge this country into the darkness of authoritarianism.

This, as I wrote last week, is unprecedented. It’s one of the most extraordinary developments in American political history. To my mind, it is now the only story worth telling about the 2024 presidential election. It should be the only thing Americans talk about between now and Nov. 5. And every one of Trump’s allies and surrogates should have to answer the question of whether or not they agree that their boss is a “fascist to the core,” as Milley put it.

What is there to say about these revelations beyond the obvious point that Trump cannot be allowed to sit in the Oval Office a second time?

I have two thoughts — almost more like observations.

The first is for skeptics: Trump’s own actions in this campaign are confirmation that Milley, Kelly and Esper are right. One thing you’ll notice as we charge toward Election Day is the spate of stories about Trump’s post-election plans. Not transition plans, for how to staff the government if he wins, but plans to challenge and overturn the results if he loses. Plans to prevent certification of electoral votes, plans to throw out votes in states he lost — plans to do everything he can to take the final decision away from the people of the United States and put it in the hands of judges and election officials who support him more than they value their sworn oath to the Constitution. Backing Trump here is a group of billionaire donors who have spent more than $140 million on this second attempt to “stop the steal” should he lose once more at the ballot box.

The mere fact that this is a thing — the mere fact that this is an effort — is evidence alone of Trump’s authoritarian intent.

Put differently, Donald Trump does not respect your right to reject his advances. If the American public declines to give him a second term in office, his plan is to force himself on that public on the theory that the country and its political system are too far gone to stop him.

This brings me to my second observation.

We don’t, in 2024, hear much talk of guardrails anymore. And for good reason. The guardrails failed. Every single one of them. The Republican Party failed to police its own boundaries, welcoming Trump when it should have done everything it could to expel him. The impeachment process, designed to remove a rogue president, was short-circuited, unable to work in a world of rigid partisan loyalty. The criminal legal system tried to hold Trump accountable, but this was slow-walked and sabotaged by sympathetic judges (and justices) appointed by Trump or committed to the Republican Party.

When the states tried to take matters into their own hands, citing the clear text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court stepped in to rewrite the amendment, turning a self-executing prohibition on insurrectionists in office into a mechanism that required a congressional vote those justices knew would never come.

Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, that same majority effectively delayed the federal trial for Trump’s role in the plot to overturn the 2020 presidential election. It also tried to nullify the case itself with a ruling that gave Trump, and any future president, immunity to criminal prosecution for a broad suite of “official acts.”

To do this, Roberts twisted the Constitution into a fun house mirror of itself, reading into the document an almost unlimited presidential impunity that cuts against the text, history and traditions of constitutional government in the United States. The court’s ruling in Trump v. United States is a vision of presidential power that, as Matt Ford observes in The New Republic, exists in a world “without John Locke, without Montesquieu, without Thomas Jefferson or James Madison or Alexander Hamilton.”

It is a ruling that ignores the classical republican ideas that underpin the American constitutional order. It is the imposition of pure ideology and a declaration from Roberts that his court doesn’t just interpret the Constitution, it is the Constitution.

The truth, at this point, is that the only real guardrails in the American system are the voters — the people, acting in their own defense.

For too long, too many of us have acted as if democracy can run on autopilot — as if self-government will, well, take care of itself. But it won’t. The reality is that the future of the American Republic is up to us.

We will decide if we live in a country where we govern ourselves. We will decide whether we hand this nation over to a man, and a movement, that rejects the notion of an inclusive American freedom and a broad, egalitarian American liberty. We will decide whether we will continue to seek — and expand upon — the promise of American democracy, as flawed and fraught as the reality has been.

It is, in fact, the great irony of self-government that we can decide to end it. “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher,” observed a young Abraham Lincoln in 1838. “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” If we wish, we can vote to hand away the closest thing we have, as a people, to a birthright.

My hope is that we don’t. My hope is that enough of us recognize the plain fact that Trump has been nothing more than a force for corruption, greed, cruelty and cynicism in American life. That he has empowered the worst among us and encouraged the worst in many of us. And that his great accomplishment as a national political leader is to spread the dangerous lie that we can blame the weakest and most vulnerable in our midst for our problems.

My hope, in short, is that enough Americans understand that there is no amount of harm you can inflict on others that will save you, give you strength, make you whole or keep you safe.

[locustheologicus]

I want to encourage people to read the following Foreign Affairs article, "How to End the Democratic Recession: The Fight Against Autocracy Needs a New Playbook" by Larry Diamond. This thorough analysis on the state of democracy is very consistent with the concern that Pope Francis has been pronouncing on the very same topic. A term that I have not heard of before qualifies the type of populism that concerns Pope Francis, Larry calls this illiberal populism and goes on to describe these as "illiberal pseudo-democracy that appealed to far-right anti-immigrant and nationalistic forces around the world." Here is the graph that is used in the article to demonstrate the growing concern of illiberal populism and its support for authoritarian regimes.

In raising the alarm Larry reminds us of our early American experience and the struggles that our founders has with a form of populism that could take our nation into a dangerous place. I raised this in a recent post where I mentioned how the American version of illiberal populism could be tied to the anti-federalist tradition of old. Larry remind us how the federalist founders who would draft the U.S. Constitution sought a system of checks and balances to restrain the ambition of authoritarian rulers.

Restraint in the exercise of power is not a natural tendency. This is why the framers of the first constitutional democracy, the United States, understood the need to check and balance power, following the Madisonian principle that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” “If you want to test a man’s character,” goes one aphorism, “give him power.” …Over the past two decades, critical constraints on human behavior have lifted. Ambitious politicians have observed the rhetoric and methods their peers abroad have used to dismantle democracy, piece by piece. These aspiring autocrats have learned from examples of success and acted on those lessons, emboldened by the inability of domestic and international actors to restrain them. Once, the diffusion of political ideas helped foster democratic transitions. Today, it facilitates democratic backsliding.

The creation of our own Constitution was a brilliant governmental meanuver by Hamilton and Madison. But the author then goes on to remind us of the fragility of this process. Illiberal populism, organized by a potential strongman, can undermine the constitutional system of check and balances to undermine the democratic process.

Furthermore, constitutions restrain rulers only if they are enforced. When these documents are embedded in norms, incentives, and expectations, violations are rare and tend to fail because powerful actors rise to reaffirm the constitutional order out of both conviction and self-interest in sustaining the rules of the game. But when severe political polarization generates a sense of existential risk—a fear that losing an election could mean the permanent loss of political power and even one’s livelihood and freedom—these dynamics change. A politician with sufficient skill and will to override constitutional norms can embark on the road to autocracy.

We have seen and heard Candidate Trump promoting such a political agenda and we need to take this very seriously. Larry Diamond suggest that democratic supporters begin organizing mass mobilizations to counter this form of populism and I for one agree. We need to take back the message and to visibly stand in defense of our institutions. With the American election coming up I believe that many of us need to be prepared for a long contested election and if the illiberal populist take to the street us neo-federalist may want to begin organizing our own movement. Professor Diamond offers this response.

The key to defeating authoritarian populism is to expose its vanity, duplicity, and venality, to show it to be not a defense of the people but a fraud upon the people. This requires independent reporting to reveal corruption. It requires using, whenever possible, countervailing institutions—regulatory bodies, auditing agencies, the judiciary, the police, the civil service, and, if there is a significant opposition presence, the legislature—to disclose and curtail abuses of the public trust. Elements of civil society, such as bar associations, trade unions, student groups, and other professional and civic organizations, can be important allies in this cause. Resistance is more effective when mobilized early; the longer populist authoritarians hold on to power, the more they chip away at institutional constraints.

I remember early on being one of those mild voices that accepted the idea that our system was completely flawed and that both parties and our government in general was inept. When others suggested this narrative I would shrug my shoulder and agree with them. Afterwards I soon realized that there was an authoritarian agenda that wanted to push this message and what our American illiberal populism was hoping to accomplish when candidate Trump was coupling his own self-interest to that message. Since then I have been using my post to help promote the concerns I have with our illiberal populism, a populism that has manifested since the birth of the Tea Party in 2009. I know others have also exposed the arguments from this movement but I think more of these voices need to be heard, neo-federalist voices that support our constitutional system of government and the democratic process. One of my favorite posts has been a defense our system of government based on an excellent documentary by Adam Conover and the teaching of Pope Francis.

As this is a blog that I promote through social media I would like to hear from others about organizing around this message, promoting what I am calling a neo-federalist movement that can address the illiberal populism that we see today. I very much think that we will see this movement reemerge as it contests the upcoming elections and I think we need to be prepared for this.

[garudabluffs]

Journalist sounds alarm on dangers of propaganda, calling it ‘one of the worst crises for American democracy this century’ MAY 07,2024

Anne Applebaum is sounding the alarm.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and historian published an 8,000-word piece in The Atlantic this week, warning about “the new propaganda war” and the dangers disinformation poses to the free world. The cover piece — excerpted from her forthcoming book, “Autocracy Inc.” — spotlighted how autocratic forces across the globe, including Donald Trump in the U.S., are waging sophisticated information wars “to discredit liberalism and freedom.”

"In Applebaum’s eyes, the deployment of propaganda by authoritarians — and authoritarian wannabes such as Trump — is one of the most profound issues of our time.

“I think it is at the center of one of the worst crises for American democracy this century, certainly in recent decades,” Applebaum told me by phone Tuesday. “If we can’t agree on what happened yesterday, then how do we write legislation about it? If we don’t share the same reality in the democracy, then how do we debate how we should organize our world?”

“It’s incredibly undermining to democracy,” she added. “Democracies rely on people having a shared perception of the world.”

Which is why, Applebaum said, those who hunger for power seek to destroy the very notion of truth. Applebaum explained that Vladimir Putin’s Russia “pioneered” the “firehose of falsehoods,” a tactic that Trump has employed in the U.S. and others have used across the world to seize and maintain power."

"Outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post inexplicably decline to even identify networks such as Fox News as “right-wing” in their news reporting."

"When I asked her why the establishment press is not more aggressively covering the story of our time, Applebaum, however, appeared stumped.

“I don’t know why it’s not covered more,” the celebrated writer candidly told me. “It seems to me to be one of the very central issues of modern society.”

READ MORE Journalist sounds alarm on dangers of propaganda, calling it ‘one of the worst crises for American democracy this century’ (msn.com)

We think we know what an autocratic state looks like: There is an all-powerful leader at the top. He controls the police. The police threaten the people with violence. There are evil collaborators, and maybe some brave dissidents.