AOC is not calling for incrementalism.
That’s what I’m saying. Because neither did the user you replied to. They didn’t call for politicians to take small steps over time, but for everyone to take action so it adds up. Big difference.
The difference being that the incrementalism was outsourced to elected officials. What I understand that sentence to mean to say is that it needs every one of you who is able to do anything of any magnitude. It adds up. And like kattfisk says, you get active and organized. You have more power than you think and democracy is more than just drawing a few crosses in a box every few years.
I mean, who is going to do it if not you? What have the heroes from the Democratic party been up to since the peaceful transition of power? Some of the Dem senators voted for many of Trumps catastrophic picks. In a time where the White House is flooding the zone (as Steve Bannon put it some time ago), Shumer is giving speeches on the senate floor, that no one is listening to and Dem leadership is scheduling emergency meetings for after the reason for the meeting goes into effect. Finally AOC shows some kind of leadership and calls upon all of you to mobilize and resist fascism and you react with “it’s a stalling tactic”? Please realize that you want the same thing. But if you want a mass movement, you will need to be organized on a smaller scale first or else it will fizzle out quickly.
I’m not surprised the EFAS got approved. It is a complex topic where you would need to read almost the whole KVG to truly understand what’s going on and the messaging of the opponents was sub-optimal to put it mildly.
The opposing opinion in the official booklet, at least for the German version, was incomprehensible and without concrete links to the substance of the issue or their claims. E.g. HOW are the insurers getting more power? What will they be able to do, that they can’t already? What are the absolute numbers, that show that premiums will rise, when the official report mentions sinking costs? Why will the quality of care deteriorate? They mention privatization, but don’t tell you what would facilitate that…
The Pro side mainly stressed the positive of correcting the disincentives towards cheaper ambulatory treatments through changing to the uniform financing formula, which in and of itself and without further context is a valid and good point. Both substantively and politically.
And my biggest problem lies with the official ‘examining review’ from the Federal Chancellery. I know it is normal to try and project what the changes in law could affect in reality. Imho they did it in a biased way. Why am I saying that? Because every argument and scenario they brought up was positive and basically the pro-opinion reads like a summary of the official review. Also: When making simplifications from the actual legal text, they used a more positive description (E.g. “coordination” vs. “restriction” talking about the states limiting offered services). There aren’t many absolute numbers to understand just how much money will shift between insurers, states and patients and what that would mean. In such a situation it is even more incumbent on the opponents to make the downsides clear and fill those gaps.
To add to that:
We have a militia system, which on first glance is a good thing. But then you realize that a plurality of parliamentarians are lawyers, business-people, advisors and other higher economic class individuals. Too many of them are on boards of directors or other high management positions in corporations. Compared to other western countries, it is more mixed, but clear conflicts of interests are present and it is still skewed towards the economic elite. The reasons for this are many, but among others voters getting such individuals in high positions can be paired with people in lower economic classes having less opportunities or motivation to run for office. Which is why local organizing is of utmost importance. You can see the effect in parliaments on a local level: They far more closely represent the population than on a state or federal level. Then there’s party politics, but that’ll get too long, soooo: Next point:
The media landscape: Your point about a billionaire having great impact on the electoral landscape extends to the media. You can count the owners of the local papers on one hand. Said billionaire owns some of them as well as an own TV channel if you can call it that. And there’s a general animosity towards the SRG SSR with political and legislative attacks to weaken it.
The interesting thing is that they are only one in a long line of businesses/industries openly admitting to employing undocumented immigrants, i.e. illegal hiring practices. It is clear, why these businesses are doing this: They can pay less (and the on-cost) and if at any point there is a dispute, they can threaten with the authorities, even if it is illegal in places to do so. If we can believe the numbers, they make up more than 4% of the workforce. Something that has been so seldomly prosecuted, it has become so prevalent, that they’re talking about it in the open.
You seem absolutely sure that this will materialize and that its implication means that you have no scope of action. Again, with enough institutionalists in important positions, even if he tries, it would be difficult for him to actually get rid of federal, let alone local and state elections. What is much more likely is that he will make it easier to skew or how he might call it “rig” elections. You know, like voter suppression and gerrymandering on steroids. So what I’ve written still holds: On a local and state level (or even federal level), pressure your elected officials and organize around the protection of voting rights. Be an active part of the legislative process. Democracy isn’t making a cross every four years. And she’s calling on all of us.
Sidenote: For everything that man says, you can find a clip of him saying the absolute opposite. So watch what he and his lackeys do, not what he says.
Decrying the persecution of crimes against humanity as antisemitic is quite something. It begs the question then, what these people see inherently Semitic about perpetrating these crimes.
The blatant misuse of this term is actually very harmful to Jews around the world, since calls of those actually suffering from anti-Jewish sentiment are not taken seriously anymore.
The OP did a quality reply already where he cites the article you’ve linked to debunk your own claims. But you could also have done with reading the OP’s article until the second paragraph.
The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.
At this point unquestionably spouting the official lies of the U.S. or Israeli governments is spouting genocidal propaganda and can only be seen as either hopelessly ignorant or bad faith.
The second paragraph in the article:
The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.
The second paragraph reads:
The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.
Outside perspective: It doesn’t have to be. It is the moment democracy, its values and its people are tested. The path towards open dictatorship and/or fascism is not set in stone. What is clear is that some setbacks, even catastrophic setbacks, are unavoidable. But as a whole the free-fall can be avoided and you can bounce back from setbacks, even if it takes time. This is actually somewhat universal, since it’s not only the U.S. which is sliding more and more towards fascistic or anti-democratic tendencies. It’s just that, like with so many other things, everything does seem to be bigger in the U.S. (and Texas).
Although I’m sure a lot are feeling economic pain and/or are generally under stress and uncertainty (IIRC 50% of households struggle to make an unplanned $1000 expense), and I don’t expect it to get better under the new administration, the U.S. is still a federated system. If you look at what affects your daily lives directly, a lot more is done on a local and state level, than on the federal level.
From where I’m standing, organizing with like-minded people in your community around issues is the most promising way to go. Unfortunately the issues are back to basics issues like human rights and democratic principles, but that’s where we are. This entails more than just protesting, but actively pressuring elected officials around legislation proposals. Suggest ballot measures (find out how such a measure gets to the ballot in the first place, because it’s very different depending on where you are). And of course having people run for office and for the others to support them to get in, and get the anti-democratic forces out, once it is time. Don’t succumb to the nationalization of local elections. People can be reached way better and more directly on the local level, when they can see it directly affecting their lives and talking to the people responsible directly than for anything happening in Washington D.C. Counter the anti-democracy spewing media outlets with true alternatives (maybe there’s an entrepreneurial-minded person wanting to found a cooperative media outlet).
It sounds like a lot to do. But you are more, than you think. Even the disillusioned might be good allies. Take yes for an answer. And more people than you might expect have been part of ‘the struggle’ for a long time. Welcome them. And yes: Coordinate with and support other local actions.
Another view on what will happen with the federal institutions: Although Trump will put more loyalists than ever in powerful stations, there will remain many (even among the loyalists) who profit from the system’s status quo. This includes the Supreme Court justices and ironically corporate goons. So in furthering their own advantage, they might resist things leading to an overall degradation. Of course they will go along with and actively lobby for anything that gives them more power at the expense of the general populace, but that is already the case. Again, if you make unlikely allies on single issues: Take yes for an answer.
Bottom line: Democracy and basic rights are ideas, made by humans. And they can only survive, as long as we believe in and fight for them. Always keep the belief, always keep on fighting. If you hit your head and fall down: Get back up. As the saying goes: This is a marathon, not a sprint. All the best!
No surprise there. Not too long ago they have given up their ‘neutral’ stance (wasn’t really when Wagner was involved with the RSF) and gained support from the SAF for the construction of a Russian naval base, while the Wagner group still fights with the RSF.
Stupid people wanted to claim that Harris was “the same as” Trump.
What we have here are voters who thought Trump would be better than Harris, not the same. I can understand, even if it’s technically wrong, when people feel that genocide is genocide. And they see what is happening there as an extension to them (which any psychotherapist who’s dealt with someone of an ethnic group which is in war can attest to).
Most of these people are in their own echo chambers
Although this is most probably a factor, I believe this to be too simple an explanation. So about the media landscape: Yes. Especially the so-called ‘new media’ is seldomly truly independent but often biased in that they peddle this false narrative that Trump is a peace candidate. Also notable is that ‘alternative media’ is largely seen as independent from billionaires and power, while legacy media is an arm of the establishment. So the narrative of ‘us vs. them’ works even better and since the biggest names lean more right or are outright Republican propaganda channels, this could translate into more people who already resent the status quo falling for them. And thanks to the engagement-optimizing algorithms they fall into these echo-chambers. Sidenote: I’m not de-legitimizing alternative outlets, but want to stress the importance of scrutinizing how they finance themselves. We just had a case of one right-wing propaganda channel being exposed as being financed by a Russian oligarch for years. (I forgot the name)
One could also point to the rhetoric and behavior of the two candidates towards the pro-Palestinian population in the last few weeks and months before the election. One side didn’t let Palestinian voices be heard and even actively and preemptively removed an elected Democrat from one of their own events, because he happened to be Palestinian American. Outside the DNC the protestors were met with disdain and ridicule by DNC delegates. And the other side came to speak lie to them about what he’s gonna do and that he takes them seriously. People are gonna see this.
Or generally when Harris said that she wanted the ‘most lethal military in the world’, while the other side talked about ending wars ‘within the first 24 hours’. Outrageous but a stark contrast.
Or the simple sentiment that with the Dems in power genocide is happening, so I’ll roll the dice. The same anti-establishment sentiment that led to Trump in 2016 in the first place (economic in nature in 2016).
Talking about anti-establishment sentiment: I know of only one exception to this. But after COVID, there’s only one incumbent party in the democratic world, that came out of elections still in power. And that’s Mexico. If you know any others, please feel free to enlighten me.
The list is not extensive by any means and is just me spit-balling. If we want to understand what happened the answers are going to be much more complex.
Now that is just plain stupid. One can make a moral argument for not wanting to vote for genocide, since the situation is similar, but not the same(!), as the famous Trolley Problem. But actively voting for the other pro-genocide option because you believed him to be a peace candidate? … This is something that needs honest analysis and reflection. Both by these voters as well as by the Democratic Party. How the hell could Trump with his abysmal record be perceived as the peace candidate by so many? I do expect though, that all the involved parties will learn the wrong lessons from this.
With all the blame, shaming and hate towards Muslim, Arab, African and Latino Americans we should also not forget: The only ethnic demographic from which Trump got a majority is: White voters.
Huh, that looks suspiciously Musk related. If you know any Jewish people in your area, ask them whether they’ve received a message of being a Hamas defender.
Look, I get what you are saying and even agree to a certain degree. Yet, the premise here is that one of both parties is opposed to genocide, which is false. For the affected voter group, who are getting shamed for making the crime of crimes their litmus test, both people are trying to make more holes albeit of different sizes.
So, what would you do? I would probably throw both of them over board ;)
I’m familiar with First-Past-The-Post voting and the spoiler effect. I’m also familiar with choosing to vote for whom you’d prefer to fight when elected. We are dealing with the crimes of crimes here and I can absolutely understand anyone whose family is affected to not want to take an active role in their killing. Especially since the campaign has not signaled to that voter block, that they are seen or heard. The best example is denying a Palestinian-American a shortened and cleared speech at the DNC. It could have been only a ceremonial thing, less weight than lip-service, but they opted for exclusion instead, i.e. the opposite.
My main point though: How can this party not be clearly ahead of that menace to democracy and its institutions? This one voter block should not be the deciding thing. Overlooking the agency of the Democratic Party in this and putting full blame on the people rubs me very anti-democratic. Implying them to be immature and other forms of voter shaming is not making a good case either.
I did say that I live in a democracy with more parties, not that it does not include elections where there is the “first past the post” principle, so I’m familiar with the spoiler effect.
Trump is worse on genocide Although that might be true in some sense, please try to understand the people affected here. If your family is the one affected, it doesn’t get more dead, than dead. I’m not saying, I would vote the same way, but I can understand not wanting to actively vote for killing your family.
I get the logic you put forth. Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.
In this case, let’s say there aren’t any other parties on the ballot other than the Democrats and Republicans. In Michigan specifically you have a voter group, that says that they cannot vote for genocide especially if it is against their own families or people that look like them. And both parties are either promising the continuation thereof or have been engaged in it and have been excluding anything related to addressing it, or people representing that voter group, from their campaign. So the presumption, that if there wasn’t a Green Party to vote for that they would be coming out to vote for the Democrats is imho just flawed. They might just as likely stay home.
What I find even more baffling is that this party can’t seem to clearly outperform the even more clearly dangerous candidate to democracy. The Arabic or Muslim population in Michigan should not be this decisive for the outcome, if the Democrats were able to actually persuade voters to turn out by delivering an attractive policy plan, thereby earning the votes, instead of just arrogantly thinking, they’re entitled to them.
There are many parallels . The most alarming in my eyes is what is reminding me of what happened before and after the passage of the Enabling Act of 1933. What it effectually did was to concentrate power into the hands of the executive, circumventing the legislature to enact laws even if they are explicitly unconstitutional. The far right’s Unitary Executive Theory has basically the same stated goal. And the judiciary has already basically embodied this theory with the SC decision around presidential immunity. I fear it is only a matter of time, until the Executive Orders override laws and can’t be challenged until it’s too late. Which is why an actually resisting opposition and organizing on the ground is so important.
To your point: Before the vote the Nazis intimidated anyone opposing the law and arrested basically the whole of the Communist Party and some of the Social Democartic Party (SPD) while striking deals with the center and religious right, who wanted some assurances for their own if they vote for it. This is the Gleichschaltung you’re talking about. And the Trump administration has been known for nothing but intimidation (the complete media landscape has heeled except for a few small actually independent outlets) and so-called deals, so absolutely.
Also the ‘flooding of the zone’ as Steve Bannon announced it, as well as the use of catastrophies (fires, plane crashes) to assign further blame to the opponents and legitimize the own actions are straight out of Autocracy 101.