Democrats are campaigning as if the 2026 election will be fair. That’s a mistake | Austin Sarat
www.theguardian.com
Trump’s remarks and Project 2025’s proposals have made the plan clear. Democrats must focus on stopping it

There’s a lot to digest here.

The thing that struck me most though was the article mentions was the tactic of allowing voters to place their vote in any state. Voter Tourism, essentially.

As the article mentions - expect something similar from the administration.

If that happens then personally I think that’s a huge sign that the mid-terms will be compromised.

Free and fair democracy is so important. It must not be destroyed.

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    1·
    11 hours ago

    Are you sure on that? My understanding of Marxism is that they believe even fair elections are rigged, so to speak, because they are bourgeois election and they discourage all participation in any election that is a bourgeois election.

    Common misconception, but yes, I’m quite sure. Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments? - V.I. Lenin

    Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.

    That’s an analysis that I agree with. I don’t think that Lenin’s goal of revolution is necessarily applicable to modern day conditions, but I think there are other methods like strikes that could be encouraged by a radical party.

    By calling it out and stating exactly what they are doing, and how, you bring awareness to it and it shows the world that it is rigged. My hope is that then other countries will take economic action and populations across the world will begin to boycott thing i.e. The World Cup and USA made goods.

    I think countries are more likely to take action based on the US’s bizarre and imperialistic foreign policy, which directly affects them, than the prospect that elections might not happen.

    The thing is that there’s so much horrible shit that the administration is doing right now, in front of our eyes, that I don’t really see much point in messaging about what they might do. At that point, if elections do happen, then everyone who said they wouldn’t looks silly and discredited, and the administration gets to dismiss the opposition as doing paranoid fearmongering.

    What do you believe the Democratic party should be doing then? You’ve made it clear what you think they will do. Of you were in their position how would you deal with the rigged election situation?

    Well look, I fundamentally disagree with their approach, but if we’re talking about messaging strategy then I think we have to stay within the realm with what’s actually plausible. Since they’re committed to an electoral approach, they can’t cast doubts on the election because it could decrease turnout. They have to operate on the assumption that the elections will happen, and focus on criticizing things like ICE, while promising things that will materially improve people’s lives, like Mamdani’s approach.

    • HamFistedVegan@lemmy.worldOP
      1·
      4 hours ago

      Ah that was an interesting read. Thank you! I could also agree with some of what he says there.

      As you also say though, strikes would be effective. More effective I believe if they can be organised properly. Trump has proven, as with Greenland amd his tariffs, that if the markets dive he will back down. That said, the aims would need to be clear. If the strikes try to force a change of government then it’s a tool others could also use in future, probably to great effect.

      think countries are more likely to take action based on the US’s bizarre and imperialistic foreign policy,

      That’s true. If the US is compromised by i fair elections though, I think the governments of other western democracies will see his government as a dictatorship at that point. They would be in for more of the same, supposedly indefinitely if Trump’s replacement was of the same mindset. I truly think that free elections is a red line for them. Just a theory though obviously.

      The thing is that there’s so much horrible shit that the administration is doing right now, in front of our eyes, that I don’t really see much point in messaging about what they might do.

      Again, true. I get your point! The thing is, Trumps base and his supporters repeatedly claim he is doing what he is elected to do. The idea of democracy and freedom is so rooted in every part of American life that, if it were truly under threat, I think there would be a big wake up call.

      It’s one thing to say you are doing what you were elected to do. It’s another entirely to say you are doing things based on an election won very transparently by illegal means. Trump is down in the polls. It’s not like 2024. To pull of a big win he would have to engage in widespread manipulation that will be very difficult to conceal. If you can highlight just how rife it is, were it to happen, you can undermine his authority by pushing the message that he has no right to be in The White House (as long as you have clear proof). I think the Democrats need to be communicating exactly what Trump is doing to manipulate the elections and why he is doing it.

      Since they’re committed to an electoral approach, they can’t cast doubts on the election because it could decrease turnout. They have to operate on the assumption that the elections will happen, and focus on criticizing things like ICE, while promising things that will materially improve people’s lives, like Mamdani’s approach.

      This is the hard part though. If you fight someone who isn’t committed to free and fair elections in a free and fair election, without telling anyone that it’s not a fre and fair election then you’re setting yourself up to lose. I would argue keeping quiet and going along with it is exactly what Trump wants the Democrats to do.