15
Why ‘democratic neutrality’ is an overlooked threat to American democracy (theconversation.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/usa@midwest.social
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

However, our research shows that there is actually a big chunk of Americans – at times a proportion as large as 52% of voters – who neither support nor oppose antidemocratic practices. While only a small number of Americans outright support violating core democratic norms, many Americans express no opinion about politicians who undermine democracy.

We call this attitude toward antidemocratic practices “democratic neutrality,” and we believe it’s an overlooked and understudied threat to democracy.

Sounds like the Boomer Generation to me!

all 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 3 months ago

i call it soft fascism

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Was there any actual democracy during the first 250?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    250 days..?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I look at it differently. It's not that they're ambivalent to democracy, it's that there are other things that they believe are more important to them, and democracy is only one path of many to get there, a means to an end.

    Republicans have whipped up a frenzy of support based on issues like abortion restrictions, gun rights, and fear of immigrants and transgender people. (And "Communism", now that the DSA is winning elections). Pump up these "threats" enough in people's minds, and they become open to practices they would have resisted previously, in order to "take action" to "save America". They're willing to "break a few eggs" to get to the results they want.

    After all, not every Republican stormed the Capitol. But in the votes we have had since then, we have found out that enough Republicans didn't find what Trump did to incite those folks disqualifying to give him a second shot at it all. If you ask them why they voted for Trump again, no one would say "Because he will abandon democratic principles to get the outcome I want". They would start with the outcomes (which usually involves getting rid of some group they don't like, like immigrants or communists), and leave the rest unsaid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    6 comments in c/PLT@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    What annoys me is the lack of historical perspective people have in the us with the consitution. These things were talked about in class. redcoat go into a town and say they are looking for criminals and toss all the homesteads. ice go into a building and say they are looking for criminals and toss all the residences. there is a whole tale on why warrants are required to search a residence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    ...Days?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    The last two paragraphs place a large share of the blame at the feet of those democratically neutral voters, but provides no course to counter the ideas.

    While the research did not dig into why those voters felt compromising democratic values in favor of other values was acceptable, Simply telling people 'that's bad' is a rather anemic approach to the problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago

    Idk; I think a policy expert is allowed to discuss their early results. I agree it's a cause for further research, but I don't really want my polling professionals mixing speculation and information.

    I'd love them to have the funding, time, and good luck to know an effective intervention. But if they don't, I think the article is doing the right thing. Not all news needs to claim to have all the answers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent