I don't know what to tell you if you don't think there's a divergence between what gets people put into power and what role they're supposed to play with that power. Again: we are currently living a live, empirical disproof of your position, as you have already acknowledged.
> It sounds like you would rather claim a lack of agency (it’s all up to the big bad Republicans) rather than even attempt to implement a pragmatic, common sense strategy. And this is why the Democratic Party finds itself rudderless.
Huh? No. It sounds like instead of reading the words in front of you, you're just arguing against the claims you want me to be making.
Harris was a terrible candidate, we don't disagree there.
Again: We disagree in your assertion that pragmatic policies on the oppositional side are all that's required to win against a demagogue.
If that's true, please tell me why demagogues have long been known to be a real vulnerability in democracies?
Answer directly: If that's all that's necessary, then why did the Founding Fathers even bother to write extensively on this problem?
> Again: We disagree in your assertion that pragmatic policies on the oppositional side are all that's required to win against a demagogue.
I never said that this is the only thing you need. You need other things as well, including a modicum of charisma, a good network on the ground, and solid fundraising to support the efforts. And a party that won’t fight its own candidate after the primaries (oh, and you should actually hold a primary).
Demagogues are a problem in every kind of government when the quality of governance declines. You just don’t often hear about it in dictatorships because the demagogues are either killed or they flee to another country. But demagogues are a sort of release valve for public frustration that’s grounded in material reality, and if you suppress their rise long enough then you eventually get a civil war, collapse, or revolution. The only solution is to fix the problems that lead people to seek out radical change.
Anyway, it’s clear we’re talking past each other, I have no desire to continue this thread further.
> It sounds like you would rather claim a lack of agency (it’s all up to the big bad Republicans) rather than even attempt to implement a pragmatic, common sense strategy. And this is why the Democratic Party finds itself rudderless.
Huh? No. It sounds like instead of reading the words in front of you, you're just arguing against the claims you want me to be making.
Harris was a terrible candidate, we don't disagree there.
Again: We disagree in your assertion that pragmatic policies on the oppositional side are all that's required to win against a demagogue.
If that's true, please tell me why demagogues have long been known to be a real vulnerability in democracies?
Answer directly: If that's all that's necessary, then why did the Founding Fathers even bother to write extensively on this problem?