Same. Bad for my global outlook.
5 Likes
I put my two cents over there.
I’m encouraging you to revisit it, because it seems the discussion belongs there.
11 Likes
I went off mute long enough to read and like your comment, but I don’t feel welcome there. That was made abundantly clear. I don’t need that added stress in my life right now.
7 Likes
I respect that. Don’t compromise your health or stability just trying to convince others who may never be convinced of something you believe in. Take time for yourself. And by all means, only think about it only as much as you believe is worthwhile and helpful for yourself.
But…
Personally I disagree. I think it’s just hard to talk about. And it’s hard to face the reality of how we ended up in such a sorry place in order to figure out how the hell to make it a better place to be in. But I think the more Americans who tap out of this kind of discourse when they really are passionate and trying to be constructive the more we lose. So I think if you aren’t welcome there either then the thread is kind of a waste.
12 Likes
Mod note: this is moved because it drifted away from the main topic of the Letters thread, so it seemed like a good idea to give it its own space.
As always, please remember to play nice. 
18 Likes
Thanks! I’m wondering if my reply should be moved here, too:
We need a place to discuss ways to take action.
12 Likes
If I moved it now, I think it would post at the end, out of order. (It’s a Discourse quirk, and I don’t know a way to work around it.) The quote link does a good job of tying the post into the discussion here.
It sounds like this would be a good thread for it, or we can start another one. 
It’s a discussion worth having, which is why I pulled this into its own thread.
14 Likes
We’ve already lost? Then what’s the point?
No, I’m not talking about one election. I’m talking about democracy. I don’t think we’ve lost that, yet, and this mismatch may explain why we seem to have been talking past each other previously.
Can we agree that when we’re talking about
current US politics, the T**** admin is attempting, and has made significant headway towards, a fascist coup?
If we agree about that, can we also agree that fighting that coup is an emergency?
If we agree that it is an emergency, would it be fair to say it is an “all hands on deck” kind of emergency?
My point is mainly this: We need to set aside disagreements about policy and any pre-existing conflicts or even old hatreds, no matter how well-earned, and focus on the fight against fascism. Under fascism, policy disputes are irrelevant, anyway, because the people have no say in policy and the fascists will change the law and its enforcement to our detriment regardless of whether we agree or disagree.
I think it’s a category error to look at our current situation in the context of electoral politics. The fascists certainly aren’t. They don’t care about whether their actions are unpopular. They don’t care about harming their chances for re-election because they don’t plan to have anymore elections. At least, elections that are anything more than show elections with predetermined results.
So with that in mind, can we afford to discard allies who we disagree with about everything else as long as they are willing to fight fascists?
Can we afford to waste time, energy, and resources on allies who won’t fight fascism?
I’d argue that latter group includes useless Dem politicians who want to sit back and let Republicans alienate voters until November 2026, but also includes leftists who take their ball and go home if they have to be on the same team as, for example, a climate-change denier.
11 Likes
Agreed. At this point, I’m looking for next steps to take from the federal to local levels. We’ve already established some useless pols need to be removed from their leadership positions. There are also some soon to be primaried due to their voting records. I’m not sure if any can justify past votes that gained public ire, but it’s unclear which proposed strategies should be used in Congress to hold the line until the next election takes place.
8 Likes
I agree with you totally but the discarding of allies truly kind of goes in all directions. Generally when I look at such things if I don’t know better I find it convincing that the agency and power are in the less progressive wing and that the less progressive voters are actually just as unwilling to compromise in many cases.
And I think it’s reached a point where people have, on the whole, simply either accepted being isolated as the victims in an extant wave of fascism or not, and among those who have not yet I truly don’t see that much willingness to compromise either.
Among the centrist dems like Biden or Harris, of course they are willing to compromise with their respected friends and colleagues and they ought to always be able to also as this is normally good politics in the US. But… not this time maybe… and that goes for all of us. Now is the time to feel where the pressure is applied because that link needs to be protected the most.
When it comes to just the fighting fascism part… Anyone who gets split off in this effort will likely not be of much use to party politics because they will likely lose their votes one way or another. But they are also being targeted because doing so weakens the party.
I think the DNC needs to come to see this lucidly for what it is and make a point of fighting it.
12 Likes
Why is the condemnation always for leftists who don’t want to play with climate-change deniers destroying their world, and never say for conservatives who like habeas corpus but won’t work with people who think black lives matter? Are there really so many more of the former than the latter?
I can agree with any hand on deck is one more, but I don’t get why it always comes with the idea of “give passes to the right and keep sticking it to the left”. We’re supposed to throw arms open for a former Bush voter but someone who voted third-party gets kicked and told to get in line already. I don’t think that’s a good tactic at all…I’m not sure it’s even setting aside pre-existing conflicts.
7 Likes
Yeah, no. I do not agree, and I don’t think that’s what France did in defeating Marie Le Pen. They still have those disagreements. But also, the US is not France. France has more than two political parties of significant size and influence, and forming coalition governments is a thing they have done for a long time. We are, for the moment, stuck with this stupid fucking two party system. We don’t have that option. Most Democrats and left of center people voted for Harris this past election. She didn’t lose because a small percentage of people on the far left voted 3rd party or didn’t vote. And ensuring that those people hold their noses and vote blue no matter what in every election until fascism is defeated isn’t going to change anything because that’s largely already happening. The coalition in France that formed was between the left and the reasonable right. Or … their version of right, which would probably be considered leftist here. Still, we would need moderate Republicans, and democracy valuing Republicans to vote blue to guarantee a lasting defeat of fascism. In other words, I don’t think our internal policy differences (our meaning everyone left of US center, centrist Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, etc.) are the problem. The problem is that, come election day, the “reasonable Republican” voters hold their noses and votes red, even though they don’t like Trump. So I see videos like Maddow’s, and especially that tik-tokker reacting to it, and it just sounds to me like “We need to do things to appeal to centrists” and I just don’t agree. I don’t. And I don’t agree because we’ve already been doing that. For 50 years we have been doing that. And it’s not working. Does that mean I think we’ve already lost? No. But I think this is barking up the wrong tree. I think we need to be who we are, unapologetically. I think that will make this party more attractive to more people, actually.
Now, when I will think that we have lost is if the Democratic Party nominates Gavin Newsom in 2028. I will not vote for him. I just won’t. No matter what. Even if the GOP has Trump illegally running for a third term, I will not vote for Gavin Newsom. If you think that makes me part of the problem, then so be it. But that’s the line I will not cross.
13 Likes
Perhaps it would be better then for even Liz Cheney herself to begin to compromise with a single progressive cause. Like put meaningful effort into communicating the change. If this was meant to be an inspiring union… I can imagine there are actually at least one or two that she could have. Things like that are the kinds of shows of faith required. That would reflect an actual shift in centrists. Like Harris had pushed her left instead of Cheney pulling the Dems right.
For me I watched Cheney do an interview with Colbert I really thought unfortunately her unwillingness to admit to any of the mistakes that brought us here as if Maga and this entire mess wasn’t an outgrowth of their own agendas… I found that repulsive and irritating. How can you be forgiven if you don’t take even responsibility?
13 Likes
tbh, I don’t give a shit if Cheney repents. Sure, we can use all the allies we can get, so she’s welcome on board the bus. But the Party doesn’t have to appeal to her voters, which is what Kamala did. There’s enough hatred of oligarchs on both sides that her pivot to the wealthy centrists was downright dumb. Had she unapologetically denounced the Gaza genocide and embraced the trans community, now that folks could have gotten behind.
12 Likes
We don’t have to accept that as a fait accompli, though. In some ways, it’s an opportunity. Many interest groups that have traditionally supported Republicans have been shaken free due to the abuses of MAGA.
I still push back on the idea that either have been functionally centrist. If we judge people on their actions rather than words, then Biden and by extension Harris have to be given more credit for actual progressive implementation. I mean, utilizing Keynesian economic policies set them apart really from any administration in the last 50 years.
Do you really need them to admit they were wrong and we were right? What does that accomplish? It just seems very short-sighted, and more than a bit selfish to make that a criterion for coordination.
Groups like farmers and coal communities have been outright betrayed by T****. Why not use that to coordinate with them? Are we so selfish that they have to admit they were wrong and we were right before we can give them basic human respect?
I’ll say it again: I’m not talking about elections. I’m talking about collective action. Protest, boycotts, strikes, etc. Conservatives are already aligning with progressives without asking permission when they shout at their Republican politicians in town halls.
I’m with you 100% on that. I don’t think he has a real chance for that, but NOW is the time to work against him. October 2028 is way too late.
7 Likes
Well I am because at the end of the day, that’s what matters. The other things may help, but if we don’t win the elections, we can keep protesting til the end of time and nothing will change.
8 Likes
I kind of need them to stop blasting away at the rest of the progressives, though. Certainly more than I need someone who voted third-party to apologize for screwing up, which apparently does still get to be relitigated. I think that’s part of a double standard – always welcome the right and blame the left – that does not do us any favors.
7 Likes
No. I don’t need to hear it from them but I do think the centrists that are being appealed to need to hear how and why they were led to believe the wrong thing, and those who have been misleading us all should admit how and why. Like that needs to be explained honestly. Who has wronged them, how, why, and what is going to be done to address it etc?
Furthermore of these very people I do also think it is fair to ask will they hold their noses and work with the rest of us? Or are some voters/allies going to be effectively alienated instead in the hopes that the coalition drawn is stronger for it?
12 Likes
Are you referring to party leadership or specific officials? I agree we need more input from the voters to change direction to the left. What I’m not clear on is who was doing the misleading. 
Can you clarify?
I was thinking this would be more of a demand than an ask. They need a broader coalition to succeed, and we have to make it clear more of the same (or a worse move to the right), ain’t it.
7 Likes
Sorry, that’s just not true. What we do now to resist fascism makes a whole hell of a lot of difference even if we do get fair elections in 2026 and even if Democrats win back majorities in Congress. What country, what world will they be dealing with? Are they going to be dealing with a hellscape and constant emergency actions, setting them up for failure in 2028? Because all too often, that’s the yo-yo effect that we experience: Republicans break shit and Democrats spend all their juice fixing it in time to be blamed for what Republicans broke. Or can we hold our ground so that they can make some progress in 2027?
Who is doing that? The same corporate Dems we already agreed were worthless? I’m not talking about them. Again, I’m not talking about politicians, even.
I don’t give a shit if they apologize. They need to help or get out of the way. It’s not remotely a double standard. It’s the exact same standard applied to corporate Dems, conservatives, whoever. Pitch in or shut up.
And I think where they were resistant to that message before, they are more open to it now. But it can’t be in the form of an “I told you so.” It has to be forward-facing. “This is what we both need and this is how we get there together.”
Precisely. That’s what leadership is. Listening and clarity of purpose.
5 Likes