[Andrew Szilvasy]

Erik,

There are Trumpists and there are conservatives; I have many conservative friends with whom I disagree with on economic policies, the size of social safety spending, the best way to deal with healthcare, and what a "life" means. These people love democracy and debate and care for the country. I think they're wrong, but they aren't bad people. In contrast, I have no Trumpist friends, and I will have none, ever.

Beto is going to lose, and he's not winning Trumpists. Cruz isn't Trump, so he may win some conservatives, though those people are a problem to me. But Beto is just riding the demographic wave that one party is trying to tamp down via voter suppression. You have to pair it also with the fact that Ted Cruz may be the most reviled man (outside of Trump) on Capitol Hill.

But let's not forget that Trumpists nearly elected Roy Moore. Liberals and actual conservatives (specifically, in each case, women) were the only reason he didn't win.

TL;DR: you can be conservative and still be my friend provided you are neither a Trumpist or a theocrat.

[Erik Olson]

I am trying to figure out what you mean exactly by ‘Trumpists’. A large portion of people who voted for Trump, in fact, also voted for Obama, and are people on the fence or independents. They are not all dihard supporters of Trump and many can and are being swayed in the other direction by new blood like Beto and Conor Lamb. I think you are being too absolutist. There is a minority of people who are the hardcore Trump supporters, who I grant you may indeed be unswayable, but they are not everyone who voted for Trump. I do not think you can put them all into that neat box. I think further if any solution to our predicament is to arise it would not be by writing people off and resigning to cynicism and defeatism.

P.S. Beto is converting people who voted for Trump. In any case, a clearer example lies in Conor Lamb, ahead as he is in a very working class rustbelt constituency.

[Andrew Szilvasy]

"A large portion of people who voted for Trump, in fact, also voted for Obama,"

That is false. Somewhere between 9-12%. Hardly " a large portion of the people who voted for Trump.

"There is a minority of people who are the hardcore Trumpers who may by unswayable." Add to it people who will vote for Trump again in 2020 despite what he's done and you have a pretty good working definition of how I'm using "Trumpists."

I don't think my previous post put them in a neat box. There are people who I disagree with who will not vote for Trump but would prefer someone else I disagree with, and they are wrong but not bad people fundamentally, and then there are the people who see and hear what Trump does and says and can't wait to vote for him again, and they are.

[Erik Olson]

9-12 is a lot of people in a country where only about 50 percent even vote. But I said what I have to say. I mean you can think every last person who hears what Trump says and wants to vote for him is categorically unswayable, but this clear division is too absolutist for me and not borne out, as Trump supporters are being swayed by Conor Lamb, whether you like it or no.

[Andrew Szilvasy]

Erik,

The 9-12% is of the people who voted. So I don't think the percentage changes anything. If anything, it makes it look worse (only 4.5-6%!).

I never said "I mean you can think every last person who hears what Trump says and want to vote for him is categorically unswayable."

I did, however, say "I think there is little reason to engage with a person who still supports Trump." I stand by that. Not because I don't think some of them may change their minds, but because I think they are, by and large, bad people or brainwashed. The former I care nothing for, the latter need help, but direct engagement on political topics isn't generally the way forward.

[Erik Olson]

Originally Posted by Andrew Szilvasy

There are people who I disagree with who will not vote for Trump but would prefer someone else I disagree with, and they are wrong but not bad people fundamentally, and then there are the people who see and hear what Trump does and says and can't wait to vote for him again, and they are.

You keep using the term 'bad people', pray, what do you mean by that? This simplistic categorization sounds like mass dehuminization, which does not bode well. You mean deplorables? That hardly worked for Hillary.

[Andrew Szilvasy]

Originally Posted by Erik Olson

You keep using the term 'bad people', pray, what do you mean by that? This simplistic categorization sounds like mass dehuminization, which does not bode well. You mean deplorables? That hardly worked for Hillary.

Erik,

I'm not a politician, so I hardly care what worked for Hillary.

"mass dehumanization." You mean like the people who support a president who said there were "good people on both sides" of a situation where one side was literally neo-Nazis? Are Neo-Nazis not bad people, or is that "mass dehumanization." What about a president--and, of course, supporters--who openly brag about abusing women? Is it better to say you should grab women by the ... or to say the person who said that is bad? What about his comments on illegal immigrants.

Yes, the world is nuanced. In the end, though, I stand against the dehumanizers. Unlike Trump (or Clinton), I have not called those I disagree with animals, for instance.

So, let's take an extreme example: Can I say that Hitler and his passionate followers--those that really stuck with him--are bad people? What about Stalin? Or am I dehumanizing Hitler and Stalin?

Because I think the more you think about that the more absurd your critique of my take becomes.

[Erik Olson]

Not every person is a bad person who supported a president who said what he said or a neo-nazi, for a multitude of reasons. It is more complex than that. If you cannot imagine how this could be, then I do not discuss with you. Do you think MLK would say such a thing even against his foes or would the profundity of his insight into humanity see that no man is an irredeemably bad person? If he thought that way he would have given up his dream that the same group, even white southerners, who lynched members of his race could one day live in harmony together. Would he call a group categorically unswayable bad people? I'm out of here. Good discussion, Andrew.

[David Rosenthal]

Originally Posted by R. S. Gwynn

David Rosenthal, I have done all a citizen can do, and I trust you have done the same. I seriously doubt that we will get everything we want this time around.

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to here -- it sounds like a defense, and I didn't mean any criticism of you above. I meant only to say that if one agrees that boycotting a journal whose editor voices support for the likes of Bolsonaro is called for, surely an at least equivalent stance is called for against an administration that calls the likes of Bolsonaro a "like-minded" leader.

Meanwhile, I have done some things, but frankly I am sure I have not done all a citizen can do, and I am even more sure that I won't get everything I want "this time around" -- assuming you mean in tomorrow's election. But I think tomorrow's election is one opportunity in an ongoing struggle to do whatever we can to impede the rise of Mussolini.

I'd add that we call the invocation of such a name as Mussolini "hyperbole" at our own peril. Trump speaks admiringly of Duterte, Kim, Putin, and now Bolsonaro. He uses the tactics and rhetoric of a would-be authoritarian dictator. I encourage people to read up on what experts in the rise of autocrats, kleptocrats, and fascists say about Trump (check out Jason Stanley, Sarah Kendzior, Ruth Ben-Ghiat for a start).

I believe we are in great danger and I know there is more I can and must do after tomorrow, no matter the outcomes.

David R.

[Andrew Szilvasy]

Erik,

"Not everyone person is a bad person who supported a president who said what he said or a neo nazi for a multitude of reasons."

I'll accept, partially, a past tense here. I can see that some people may have been duped in 2016. But now, no.

Further, I worry your view of King flattens him. If you think he wanted to engage white supremacists, you are wrong. He didn't do Selma for them. Obviously some people can and will change; you keep putting words in my mouth. But King knew that there were bad people, and so he used what techniques he could to show other, not-bad people, the sheer cruelty and brutality of the bad people he faced off against, the sort of people who bombed a church.

You side-stepped my question. Can I call people who openly praise fascists bad? Can I call people who say that there were good Neo-Nazis bad?

You are very worried about me calling people bad. Yet you seem to use this word differently than I do, and no matter how many times I try to call attention to it, you sidestep it. For instance, I never used the adverb "irredeemably."