This diary includes comments I’ve posted previously, somewhat revised and extended:
It’s not uncommon for me to hear from people who do not share my views that the GOP is a fascist regime, that GOP voters by definition have made the choice to align with that regime, and that they do so because that is their preference, their conscious, deliberate decision.
In other words, my view is that rank and file GOP voters are fascists, and the regime would not exist without them, if not for their votes, and their ongoing support.
When a person does not share my view, it’s also not uncommon for them to state something to the effect ‘They’re not all the same’, or ‘74 million voters didn’t enter the Capitol intent on murder’, as if such statements convey some sort of acute observation, or constitute some sort of substantive rebuttal.
Such statements generally accompany the contentions: a) it is wrong to render such judgements about so many people I’ve never met, and b) there are decent people who vote GOP who need our understanding, and we must make efforts to invite them to join with us in some common purpose (presumably because such efforts on our part will solve the problems caused by the presence of fascist regime across our nation- actively committing crimes against humanity and murder, and attempting to overthrow our democracy).
Such statements are not just, to quote someone I heard somewhere, malarkey, they are in fact dangerous. If we adopt propositions (a) and (b) above, more people will die, and next time, the fascists will be more adept at burning our democracy to the ground.
Here’s why the observation that ‘they are all different’ is simply a vapid description, akin to saying ‘they all have feet of varying size’. Undoubtedly true, but demonstrating nothing about the person’s political priorities or worldview. I’d suggest that political priorities and worldview matter more than any other characteristics when someone has facilitated a gang of criminal thugs whose purpose was to destroy the Capital, dismantle our democratic institutions, and murder Democratic members of Congress.
Individual differences don’t always reflect meaningful distinctions in understanding who belongs to what cohort.
Not all of an individual’s characteristics, the purported contributing factors to their decisions, are equally relevant, especially when it comes to the decisions people make.
Two different species of tree can be present in the same forest, and are part of what comprises that forest.
Amplifying the importance of differences among individuals, when those differences do not produce substantially different effects, can create the illusion that these disparate characteristics represent ‘daylight between them’, perhaps even opportunities to find a path to reconciliation, when none exists in reality.
The importance of understanding our enemies
How is it I might to know a person’s political priorities and worldview, when I have not met them, or spoken with them?
I’d say I’m on more solid footing by noting their choices and conduct over time, whom they decide to affiliate with, and elevate in public office, whom they consider an authority, and whom they don’t, than someone who makes an appeal to ‘we don’t know their real intentions, or how they found themselves congregating with fascists, the circumstances that brought them there, until we’ve heard them out’.
I’m able to observe the choice they made with their vote, and with whom they still choose to align.
These things show their preferences, their priorities, what they deem acceptable to them.
Just as it does for you, or me, or anyone else.
It strikes me as staggeringly presumptuous to claim that we must start with the assumption that among people we have not met ‘not all are fascists, deep down they can be reached with moral appeals’ , despite the evidence of what these same people have clearly demonstrated, year after year, in their public conduct.
Even if a person interviewed all 74 million GOP voters personally, what powers of discernment allow them to peer into their souls and divine their ‘true heart of hearts’,
Credulous acceptance of pretexts, and post-hoc justifications, is not a virtue.
It creates the conditions where more crimes are committed, more people die.
I find that problematic as a starting point.
The problem is, some data, and some contentions (even when these are considered by well-intentioned people) are spurious.
This is especially true when it comes to assessing another person’s conduct, their choices, their expressed motives, their rationale.
That is, the person’s explicit claims of how they, and their motives, are different from some others whom they nevertheless find themselves aligned with, are not presumptively genuine. Additionally, whatever story a person may tell themselves as to why they make certain choices, act in a certain way, in order to feel justified in what they do, to maintain their self-image as reasonable, even righteous, is also not presumptively legitimate, or even coherent.
To place undue emphasis on apparent or claimed differences, without scrutinizing them, without evaluating their credibility and salience, without considering the potential for hidden motives, or the desire to camouflage actual intentions behind a favored public persona, is, to say the least, problematic.
If instead we approach the task of looking clearly at the opponents we’re focused on in this discussion (and so many discussions here at DKos), opponents who have contributed by their choices, and alignment with the party of mass death and crimes against humanity, have facilitated acts of violence with the purpose of overthrowing our democracy, we might need to be more cautious about how much we make of claimed ‘differences’, and what those ‘differences’ actually signify.