this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024

315 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19072 readers

4738 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

315

Historians meet Biden for a White House lunch, urge him to speak out more forcefully (www.politico.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

President Joe Biden hosted a small group of scholars and historians for lunch on Wednesday as he gears up for a speech framing the upcoming election as a battle for the nation’s democracy.

The discussion revolved around “ongoing threats to democracy and democratic institutions both here in America and around the world, as well as the opportunities we face as a nation,” the White House said in a statement.

Princeton’s Eddie Glaude Jr. and Sean Wilentz, Harvard’s Annette Gordon-Reed, Yale’s Beverly Gage and Boston College’s Heather Cox Richardson were among the attendees, as well as presidential biographer — and occasional Biden speech writer — Jon Meacham.

Attendees were tight-lipped about what was discussed at the gathering. One would only go so far as to say they “talked about American history and its bearing on the present — a lively exchange of ideas.”

Another person in the room, who like the others was not authorized to speak publicly about a private meeting, said the historians urged the president “to call out the moment for what it is.” In blunt terms, the academics discussed looming threats to the nation’s democracy and warned about the slow crawl of authoritarianism around the globe.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago (80 children)

I think it's important for Biden to call out this moment for what it is. It will be difficult to do, though, without alienating the people in the country who have incorporated Trump into their political identity. When you point out that their emperor has no clothes, they will feel exposed themselves and lash out at the truth teller.

Biden has to try and build a coalition of all sorts of people to meet this moment. Especially all the people who are disillusioned with the situation in Gaza right now. It amazes me how all those people would think Trump would be any better at that. Trump would sell out Gaza to build a resort if we let him.

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Trump would gleefully see Gaza get destroyed. He would call on Israel to not slow down and allow aid to pass through, but do it faster. Like, “have it done by next Monday so I can take the credit for it”.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Then call on biden to act to stop the genocide and there wont be an issue.

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Biden doesn’t control Netanyahu and Netanyahu would much rather have Trump back in power. Why the fuck would he do him any favors

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Biden doesn’t control Netanyahu

Did Netanyahu force Biden to sell him weapons?

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hell did he force him to bypass congress to do so? Twice?

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Or veto a UN resolution for ceasefire?

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It will be difficult to do, though, without alienating the people in the country who have incorporated Trump into their political identity

They're already alienated, there's likely nothing Biden could possibly do that would earn him their votes.

The question is- can Biden afford to alienate the folks who are against US support of Israeli occupation and genocide? If they stay home, the GOP wrecking crew may get another 4 years of opportunity to dismantle American democracy. Is it safe to bet that they'll hold their nose and vote against the greater evil?

I'm not 100% sure how much of the Democratic party (or independents) would find it to be a deal-breaker if Biden were to take a critical stance of Israeli occupation and genocide, nor am I certain of how many likely-democratic voters find it a deal-breaker if Biden continues to give Israel military support without conditions. It seems likely to me that if Biden doesn't address this issue directly and clearly, he will lose one or the other of these groups and I worry he can't afford that in 2024

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The great part is that there's nothing Biden can do that would be a deal breaker. I must vote for him because the way we vote is stupid. There's nothing that can make me not because the alternative is objectively worse.

So it's no wonder the DNC doesn't care what I think.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (78 replies)

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago

I hope they spoke very strongly, this is the time for strong language.

[–] Desistance@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

Now is definitely the time for stronger language and to actually communicate.

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

I'm encouraged to hear that he's talking with historians on the current moment; there's a lot going on right now that if he just follows politics-as-usual may result in a failure of democracy in the United States.

The deficits in trust the Democratic party are experiencing today might be unprecedented in modern US politics, but the pattern on display bears striking similarity to the politics of the Antebellum period in the United States, and there are also stark parallels to be drawn between US politics today and that of Weimar Germany in the 1920s.

The last thing Biden can afford to do is double down on the status quo. Although his admin has been doing yeoman's work in bringing back progressive policy, I worry that his political instincts on Gaza will have him rush to the "middle ground" to appease the right, when really that isn't a middle ground at all- and in doing that he risks squandering whatever goodwill he's accumulated among likely democratic voters.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You know what’s a really big threat to democracy? Only getting two terrible choices for president, for Senator, for representatives, for governors, and for every other elected position above dog catcher.

People become disillusioned and hopeless because they don’t see any meaningful change and check out. And they stop voting.

But this speech is gonna be about Trump and not that.

[–] Soulg@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Trump is the bigger threat. Once he's gone that should become the new focus

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

There will always be another bigger threat, the fash voter base, police and military presence, and judicial presence doesn't go away when Trump does. Biden needed to clean house, not tiptoe and allow these people to sit on the sidelines like Clarence Thomas until they activate like a sleeper cel.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

It should, but it won't.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not likely. Alternative voting is a threat to both the RNC and DNC hegemony.

Libertarian and Green candidates are routinely decried as ‘false flag vote siphons’ despite having materially different policy stances from both main parties. It’s easier to keep your team in line with national level funding and intra-party discipline than to actually compromise and work on bi/tri-partisan legislation or a coalition government.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

people should concentrate third party at local levels as there is a real chance there also vetting the candidates at the primary level. We have greens at various local positions around me but we have also had insincere candidates try and run as the party canidate (they think getting on a third party will be easier)

[–] No_Ones_Slick_Like_Gaston@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Ranked voting is best than this

load more comments