But this isn’t

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yeah but also the reliance on ‘norms’ is part of the problem.

    We relied on the ‘norm’ of R v W when no law was on the books stating otherwise.

    We’re relying on the ‘norm’ of a 2 term president when no law is on the books stating otherwise.

    We need to actually codify norms into something enforceable if we want them to have real meaning. Otherwise they are just opinions.

      • ignirtoq@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s part of what makes Trump’s talk of a 3rd term both ridiculous and terrifying. It would violate the Constitution, so a radical change to our country would have to happen for that to happen. All of our “inalienable rights” are guaranteed by the Constitution, so if they throw it away for a 3rd Trump term, they can throw it away for anything else they want. Want to go back to only white men who own land voting? It’s the Constitution blocking that. Making treason a crime? The Constitution. Once they break that, we’re hosed.

        • dil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          7 months ago

          They’re already throwing out the Constitution. Fourteenth amendment says he’s ineligible to be president because of the insurrection.

          • elephantium@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            7 months ago

            That should have been a slam dunk impeachment conviction. That the discussion even gets to the 14th makes me weep for the country I thought I grew up in.

        • crusa187@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          This isn’t new at all, so if anything ignoring the 22nd is just furthering the current trajectory of decline imo. What happened to our “inalienable right” to privacy, supposedly guaranteed by the 4th amendment, after 9/11 and the ensuing bipartisan surveillance bill known as the Patriot Act?

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 months ago

      From a game theory perspective, it is impossible to create a system that is immune to bad faith actors. They will always find cracks to squeeze through. The people within the system have to proactively police against bad faith actors.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s true. Relying on norms is a problem.

      But, I think it’s still worth pointing out that there has been a wild shift.

      Maybe there have never been good Republicans. Maybe. That’s irrelevant.

      Consider the man who took down McCarthy: a republican crushing a “fellow” republican. There existed a point, where the man who asked “Have you no decency?” Was “on the same team”.

      There is nuance to the conversation. I don’t ask a republican to be ashamed for identifying as a republican. I only ask them to be ashamed of the state of the Republican party. Don’t tell people you’re the party of Lincoln. BE the party of Lincoln.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        “How Democracies Die” goes into quite a bit of detail about this – basically, it is impossible to run a system purely by making the right laws, because the system is made of people. The laws can say whatever you want. If the people start to betray them, the system will fold.

        In practice (so says the book) every single democratic government depends on a structure of norms, and violation of norms and laws goes hand in hand to form the eventual collapse into fascism when it happens.

        They also say that resistance from the establishment conservatives (that the fascists are trying to invade and co-opt from within) is generally the key factor that can prevent a fascist takeover. Which is pretty fuckin worrying when you look at the modern Republicans.

        • Windex007@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Interesting.

          Makes me kinda sad that there is a democrat mentality that there CAN’T be a good Republican. It politically disincentivises any republican to be that voice.

          Which is probably why the Russian interference playbook is to reinforce the notion that there can not be a good Republican (or democrat).

          • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Tell me one republican policy that is good. No more weapons for Ukraine doesn’t count because they only think they need those weapons to use on Mexico, Iran, and China.

            If the end result of every policy a politician supports is bad, how can they be a good politician?

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          resistance from the establishment conservatives (that the fascists are trying to invade and co-opt from within) is generally the key factor that can prevent a fascist takeover.

          That’s a very idealist understanding of fascism, I’m not sure your book is worth anything if the author thinks fascism just a thing that happens and can be stopped by individuals instead of examining the system that creates the conditions for fascism.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Learning from people even if they don’t agree with all of your existing conclusions, or want to present well researched facts and conclusions that are outside the scope of your favorite model and your favorite facts to present, is a good thing, not a bad thing.

            Case in point: I am genuinely curious, what would you say is the way to structure a society so that it won’t have within it the natural ingredients for collapsing into fascism over time? If you’re going to say (I assume) that capitalism will inevitably turn into fascism as time goes by?

            (The book is obviously more complete and well researched than my one sentence summary alone, since it draws from 10-20 countries and the exact details of how fascism arose or didn’t in each one, and what might be the factors that were instrumental in why it happened the way it did in each. That factual analysis and examination of history to see how reality tends to play out I think is pretty invaluable to being able to understand. That said, your broader point, that maybe we shouldn’t get too deep into the nuts and bolts of how things play out once they reach the crisis point without looking firmly at the factors that brought the countries to the crisis point in the first place, I actually think is a really good point.)

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    7 months ago

    How nice of the guy who sang about bombing Iran to snatch the mic away from a crazy person that would’ve made him look bad if he had agreed. This was back when republicans had to keep up appearances of decorum. His policies were still along the same lines as trump (and as bush before him).

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I’m sorry, how many bombers did you personally stop from bombing children in Laos?

        None? Oh, you didn’t even take an aircraft carrier out of commission during the vietnam war?

        Edit: In case somebody didn’t get the joke, Mccaine was a terrible pilot who crashed 2 planes and was involved in an incident that took a carrier out of commission and killed almost 200 soldier.

        There’s not a lot of people who directly did as much to slow the American war machine as Mccaine’s incompetence.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      a crazy person that would’ve made him look bad if he had agreed

      The bitter truth was that McCain’s political instincts sucked. He should have doubled down and gone with the crazy, rather than trying to play at respectability politics and wait to sabotage Obamacare from the cloak room of the Senate. His base didn’t want to hear about how Obama’s plan was a moderate reform to shore up a broken private system. They wanted to hear that the scary black man was going to kill whitey.

      His policies were still along the same lines as trump (and as bush before him).

      McCain took a full 180 on a litany of policies - climate change, health care, immigration, balancing the budget - the moment Obama stepped into the White House. But that’s SOP for “moderate” Republican congressmen. Spend 20 years going to Think Tanks, agreeing with everyone, and saying you’re going to deliver reform. Then torch a mountain of legislation because your rival hurt your feelings when he didn’t let you win.

  • CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 months ago

    In that election I actually liked/wanted McCain, and this was one of the highlights for me (looking back, rose-tinted I’m sure).

    It showed that McCain was still an honest person (comparatively), and had integrity/ethics.

    • jaschen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Me too. Then he absolutely lost me after Palin. What an idiot of a person. She can see Russia from her house?!?!

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      McCain is almost single-handedly responsible for helping birth the tea party in that election. He made an alliance with the growing far right (still without the official name “the tea psrty” at that point in time, but undoubtedly connected) to win the election, and they grew in power since then. Yeah, a big part of their rise was Obama being Black. But another huge piece to that puzzle was McCain making Palin his running mate.

    • Dg2445@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      I liked McCain as well, until he picked Palin. On that day I changed my party affiliation from R to I because I knew there was no room under the big tent for a person like me.

      • Jarix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Why do you need a party affiliation? Why not just vote as you see fit at the time of voting (i know I’m the weird one but i still don’t understand this after 40 years)

        • King3d@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The biggest reason for most people is for closed primaries, which vary from state to state. During a closed primary or caucus, only voters registered with that party can take part and vote.

  • Spaceinv8er@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    Im a fairly progressive person.

    When he ran I was totally going to vote for him.

    Then he chose Palin as his VP. Not because she’s a woman. I thought that was dope. It was when she spoke. Bridge to nowhere bs totally ruined him.