Super Tuesday is now behind us. Which means the 2024 presidential campaign is now in full swing. And it’s the rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump that no one wanted. We’re staring down the barrel of a campaign season that will most likely see many Democrats, at least as suggested by
I think you do have to assume the other voters are rational; it's not sufficient to think "democracy is the least bad form of government". If I assume other voters are NOT rational, then it would seem that disenfranchising the irrational voters would yield a superior form of government. (In the limit, if I think I'm the only rational person, then my rationally "best" form of government might be my dictatorship.) In other words, the statement "democracy is the least bad form" has a hidden assumption: "the electorate is rational"
Your logic assumes that the varying camps are telling the truth. Having grown up in NYC was enough to for me to judge TRUMP’s inability to tell the truth. During his eight years on the political scene he has provided countless examples of his grifting and conning those who can least afford it.
I agree with you that “Most of my fellow citizens are capable of reasonable thought most of the time.”
But Trump is not one of that “Most”.
We need to believe him and understand that he, along with his conspirators Bannon,Miller, Ronnie Jackson et all will turn our country into a strong man autocracy and buy him out of debt and keep him out of jail.
Normal debate rules do not apply. We have to crush him at the ballot box.
I agree with the need to talk to the other side and use reason in doing so, even when you strongly disagree. But this is the argument I think goes too far: "what if democracy’s silent existential threat is calling the other side an existential threat to democracy?" I object to the idea that harsh criticism is an existential threat to democracy. What endangers democracy is when we cease making arguments and turn to violence and repression as the response to our enemies. But criticism, no matter how harsh, is still part of the democratic process rather than an existential threat to it.
Note we haven't carefully defined "democracy".
I think you do have to assume the other voters are rational; it's not sufficient to think "democracy is the least bad form of government". If I assume other voters are NOT rational, then it would seem that disenfranchising the irrational voters would yield a superior form of government. (In the limit, if I think I'm the only rational person, then my rationally "best" form of government might be my dictatorship.) In other words, the statement "democracy is the least bad form" has a hidden assumption: "the electorate is rational"
Ilana,
Your logic assumes that the varying camps are telling the truth. Having grown up in NYC was enough to for me to judge TRUMP’s inability to tell the truth. During his eight years on the political scene he has provided countless examples of his grifting and conning those who can least afford it.
I agree with you that “Most of my fellow citizens are capable of reasonable thought most of the time.”
But Trump is not one of that “Most”.
We need to believe him and understand that he, along with his conspirators Bannon,Miller, Ronnie Jackson et all will turn our country into a strong man autocracy and buy him out of debt and keep him out of jail.
Normal debate rules do not apply. We have to crush him at the ballot box.
SWG
I agree with the need to talk to the other side and use reason in doing so, even when you strongly disagree. But this is the argument I think goes too far: "what if democracy’s silent existential threat is calling the other side an existential threat to democracy?" I object to the idea that harsh criticism is an existential threat to democracy. What endangers democracy is when we cease making arguments and turn to violence and repression as the response to our enemies. But criticism, no matter how harsh, is still part of the democratic process rather than an existential threat to it.