[ngruhn]

The parallels to the rise of Nazi Germany are striking. But it can be much worse. Read "February 1933" if you want to get a feel. Pretty much daily reports of people getting killed in clashes between Nazis and Communists. Hitler almost immediately suspends right to assemble, free speech etc, and orders police to kill dissidents on sight. Prominent artists and journalists are getting arrested or are fleeing the country. All of that within a month of Hitler taking power.

There is still hope for the US. The press is still critical, the opposition is not arrested, the courts are still giving push back, and it's not civil war level violence.

[smt88]

The midterms will be a landslide if allowed to run fairly.

Trump’s response to that landslide will tell us whether there’s hope.

I don’t expect Civil War levels of violence because the country is mostly united in its hatred of how the GOP is running it. No large group of people will pick up arms to support Trump’s right to invade countries and ruin the economy.

[thrance]

> The midterms will be a landslide if allowed to run fairly.

SCOTUS just repelled the "voting rights" part of the civil rights acts, allowing states to gerrymander the black vote out. Which all red states immediately did. The midterms already won't be fair, and it can get worse until then.

> the country is mostly united in its hatred of how the GOP is running it.

It really isn't, 30% of the country is still diehard MAGA. They may be disappointed about the results (or lack thereof), but nothing will make them reconsider their support for Trump. And these people have disproportionately more firearms than the rest of the population.

[sheikhnbake]

That 30% have also been in a decades long information silo that has convinced them that anyone marginally to the left of them is either mentally ill or demons. I grew up with Michael Savage on the radio.

[reactordev]

The National Guard may end up having a decision of a lifetime

[exceptione]

Disclaimer: I don't want to make people despair nor do I want to install fatalism. People should take action, no matter the bad chances.

  > if allowed to run fairly.
  > Trump’s response to that landslide will tell us whether there’s hope.

The fairly part is already out of the window, we have had the fake bomb threats at the polling stations. But as you have seen in Hungary, an autocrat has to fear a mass revolt. So an outsized signal can still make it through, despite the rigged elections.

But that isn't even the most important part. Imagine the Dems win next round. What then? I have the impression that the Americans do not fully grasp the structural damage that has been done. The Dems won't be able to clean up the mess that the conservatives had left them as they have been doing traditionally. This time the US is highly isolated, the economy is under severe threat from the GOPs own doing; Iran, almost unlimited lawless access to European markets (contrary to popular belief) for the tech oligarchy, institutional knowledge gone, soft power gone.

Also imagine throwing the owners of fake news blasters like Fox News in jail, would you think that would be possible? When an outsized portion of the populace think this is Free Press, there is a cultural problem that prevents root causes to be dealt with. The commercial apparatus is necessary for "flooding the zone", but doesn't function as the Fourth Estate, a required function the general population would not even know about.

The Heritage Foundation at alii have a large time horizon, they have been working on overthrowing democracy for decades. The asymmetry of having no regards for the rule of the law versus having to follow it is another disadvantage for the Dems. It is a seduction to join the dark side, to let the Dems play the game the other party is good at.

The Dems are setup for failure; they need a bizarre effort to overcome the structural damage and the corporate occupation of culture. Notwithstanding the neoliberal factions inside, which are equivalent to the "GOP of older times sliding into autocracy but not there yet". The GOP is bad, but I don't want to portray the Dems as 100% good, on the contrary. The Democratic Party is a big tent, and should rather be broken up in different parties, so Americans have something to choose from actually.

In short: people should not hope that the other party will fix their problems; they should start to question themselves, the cultural beliefs they have been fed and most importantly, they need to understand their own and their peers role in this mess. The change should come from bottom up, grassroots style.

[soco]

Please correct me if I'm wrong and I would hope to stand corrected, but my impression from across the pond is that the Dems in general would enjoy being in the same lead and would gladly use similar mechanisms - so they wouldn't change structurally that much even when they get to the levers. Many techbros and other personalities would also simply swear new allegiances, get celebrated for "their" win and continue to erode at everything because money is money in the end and the GOP lead demonstrated there's good money to be made this way. Of course there are and will be exceptions to this, but significantly many? Time will tell.

[exceptione]

  > would gladly use similar mechanisms - so they wouldn't change structurally that much even when they get to the levers.

To address the first part, «similar mechanisms», the Dems realize too late that the GOP had stopped playing the same 'game', as in: the rule of law, respecting institutions, not overstepping the boundaries. They would not gladly use similar mechanisms, because it would mean that no party in the USA would be a democratic rule-abiding party. You would end with a Russia governance style, where 'might makes right' rules instead of the law. In other words: maffia governance. That is why rules alone wouldn't save a democracy. If you can get away with ignoring them, the rules are dead

The second part, «so they wouldn't change structurally», is a real problem. There is quite a bunch of senators and people clinging to their position and their networks, standing in the way of real chance. Franklin D. Roosevelt had the same problems. The moneyed interests are a big problem too. From a distance I think AOC is the most clear-headed and general interest driven person, but she has to overcome established interests in the Democratic Party. That requires money and backing from influential people.

And frankly, the press might sometimes sound critical about current affairs (out of necessity, they have to maintain strata-specific degrees of credibility), but they don't raise the alarm (which has been several years overdue). For some politicians and power brokers, just facing up to the consequences of their (in)actions would be too unpleasant, let alone they would want to give up their interests. So they gladly let themselves be lulled to sleep. If the editorial boards would stop down-playing and bullshitting, those "all is more or less fine" people would start to face electoral heat, but you can safely bet the corporate incentives aren't aligned with that.