[flamble]

I think "hold the first accountable" is the wrong focus to have here, especially since so much of what the Republicans do violates norms rather than actual rules. I think it would be better to see the Democrats adopt their tactics, i.e. using every available mechanism to oppose everything they do as forcefully as possible, as opposed to meekly waiting for good faith from the other side which will never be forthcoming.

The other thing with "holding accountable" is that it can backfire. Imagine a second Trump impeachment passing. It would be perfect for the Republicans. They would have a solution to the problem of his potential reelection bid (which they would like to avoid), while simultaneously he would be a martyr as well as a symbol of what "cancel culture" / "leftist authoritarians" took away from you, the patriots.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

You think a race to the bottom of decency is a better idea? Really? How do you think that ends?

[flamble]

A race to the bottom of decency is exactly what is currently happening. One side continuing to "take the high road" will do absolutely NOTHING to stop it.

It is delusional to think that the Republicans will ever be shamed into cooperation. They don't care, their voters don't care, and high-minded speeches about the need for civility are the stuff of a comedy sketch if delivered while the listener is in the process of hacking you to pieces.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

If you honestly believe that, then who cares who wins? You'll just get one of two different brands of corrupt, power hungry, greedy, totalitarian regimes. That may happen regardless, but I for one won't be cheering it on.

[flamble]

I'm honestly baffled by this. I care who wins because of the POLICY DIFFERENCE, i.e. the difference between what the two parties want to DO with their power. I can't even imagine what kind of worldview I would need to have to believe that the desirability of a political regime is a function of the level of courteousness of the politicians within it, so I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from with this claim.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

So in other words you support totalitarianism, so long as the totalitarians agree with you.

Sorry, I can't take anyone seriously who doesn't see a problem with that philosophy.

[flamble]

This a complete non-sequitur.

Authoritarianism consists in undemocratic rule in which obedience is brutally enforced, and dissidence suppressed, using the security apparatus of the state.

Authoritarianism does not consist in using every avenue allowed within the rules of a democratic system in order to exercise power, even if it's "not nice".

Again, it's genuinely puzzling how you could conflate these two things.

[BitwiseFool]

"Decency" is all a show. Politics has always been about power.

[EVdotIO]

People need to really internalize this. It's a game for power, and depending on the circumstances, will use any tool necessary to achieve those means. Our opinions here are worse than nothing, as it accomplishes nothing of value at the expense of projecting our (dare I say propagandized) bias onto millions of people while changing our behavior in very harmful ways to ourselves and others.

We all need to just detach, because what is DC really going to do for you? I don't know, but I would put serious money on it being negligible to the impact of your immediate family, friends and community.

[mindslight]

Two years ago I'd have fully agreed with where you're coming from, but this latest dose of celebritized ignorance has caused the deaths of half a million Americans and wasted a year of all of our lives. There's a significant difference between our traditional self-interested domestic-looting foreign-malevolent power structure, and one that's actively self-destructive. The question has become more like what is DC going to do to you?

[AnimalMuppet]

It might also lead to another presidential candidate arising in the same mold as Trump, and people latching on to him in vengeance against what they perceive as unfair treatment of the martyr Trump.

[eyelidlessness]

> I think "hold the first accountable" is the wrong focus to have here, especially since so much of what the Republicans do violates norms rather than actual rules

Why not defend norms? If the premise is that the divide isn’t so bad, standing up for decency without needing to pass a law is at least as big a deal as a tan suit.

> I think it would be better to see the Democrats adopt their tactics, i.e. using every available mechanism to oppose everything they do as forcefully as possible, as opposed to meekly waiting for good faith from the other side which will never be forthcoming.

I’m confused how this is a distinction. The tactic that achieves that is holding the other side accountable.

> The other thing with "holding accountable" is that it can backfire. Imagine a second Trump impeachment passing. It would be perfect for the Republicans. They would have a solution to the problem of his potential reelection bid (which they would like to avoid), while simultaneously he would be a martyr as well as a symbol of what "cancel culture" / "leftist authoritarians" took away from you, the patriots.

Please understand that I’m not picking on you and don’t have any real quarrel with you. But this is exactly the kind of spinelessness I’m talking about. Read it back to yourself and see how much you’ve conceded before you even began. You’re accepting their advantage (which is structural not messaging) and just giving the whole battle up. They get to walk away with the win and still claim cancel culture bullshit because who would dare question them?

They need to lose. They need to be shown they can and will and do lose. That’s what accountability achieves. You can’t stack the Senate for the Dems, but you can sure as shit keep it in their hands with some real trials.

[flamble]

I think I have the same feelings as you about the Democrats' spinelessness, but a disagreement about what a more robust approach entails.

> standing up for decency without needing to pass a law is at least as big a deal as a tan suit.

"Standing up for decency" is completely meaningless. The Republicans do not think in those terms, and neither do their voters. They want their agenda passed and they will use the means at their disposal to achieve that. That is exactly what I want Democrats to do. What I view as "spineless" is the Democrats' insistence on continuing to abide by norms that their opponents have long since abandoned in the hopes of a return to comity. It is not going to happen.

My view is that the only way to defeat the Republicans is to enact left-wing policies that are broadly popular, e.g. stimulus checks, medicare expansion, etc., and thus eat away at the foundation of immiseration, precarity and alienation that is the root cause of rising social tensions.

I don't think that the Democrats are, as a party, capable of doing that (or even desire to), which is why the outlook is so bleak.

[eyelidlessness]

I think we're more on the same page than you think, see my comment about what I think dems should do[1]

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26020497