Toby Buckle

there's a distinction between:

1. welcoming the support of someone who was wrong

2. accepting their leadership

there been a bunch of fascism articles recently whose argument goes:

1. the annoying alarmist dipshits said a bunch of stupid stuff

2. yet somehow, what they predicted ended up happening

3. waffle around vaguely for a bit, without ever reconciling 1 & 2

Appeasement Isn’t Working An audio essay: Putting the UK's new anti-refugee policies in context, why they are both bad on their own terms, but also a big warning sign for our democracy. Where we're at, and why there is hope.

Anyway, not to be all "I listened to a really good podcast about this" but I listened to a really good podcast about this recently that lays out how reactionary centrism not only enables fascism but refuses to learn from its mistakes - soundcloud.com/toby-buckle-...

www.liberalcurrents.com/trump-alarmi...

should their way of thinking about politics, which caused them to get it wrong, & which they have not revised in any way, govern the strategic decisions of the anti-fascist coalition?

the question is, if someone with real influence & power was wrong about *the defining political issue of our era*, confidently wrong, arrogantly wrong, & has never reflected on why, are they best placed to lead now?

tbc, on 1, absolutely agree

a lot of tight elections recently, you never throw a vote back, even if cast for the dumbest reasons imaginable

the civility police often argue 1, whereas most of our side - the cassandra side let's call it - is focused on 2

there's a distinction between:

1. welcoming the support of someone who was wrong

2. accepting their leadership

The Americans Who Saw All This Coming—but Were Ignored and Maligned Call them the Cassandras: the people—mostly not white and male—who smelled the fascism all over Trump from jump street. Why were they “alarmists,” and how did “anti-alarmism” become cool?

I’ed love to see @theatlantic.com run someone like @polphilpod.bsky.social‘s article on the people who were *correct* about the dangers of rising fascism but laughed at. Our elite media rewards cautious (and wrong) pundits and shuns us folks who were right.

newrepublic.com/article/2042...

This is so so so so good. Read the whole thing. Tldr; it’s the gender, stupid

I truly, truly get it why a lot of good people are saying that Minneapolis is not about left or right, democrats or republican, now. I understand. But I’m sorry it actually is

'i observe that there are many different types of chairs & am now at a loss for how to proceed"

the logical endpoint of that is not being able to use most words

“Call them the Cassandras: the people—mostly not white and male—who smelled the fascism all over Trump from jump street. Why were they “alarmists,” and how did “anti-alarmism” become cool?”

their predecessors could write - christopher hitchens was wrong about a wide range of things (& right about some), but was always a fun read

the tend to be very highly educated, they've been writing their whole lives, & writing the same 2-3 columns to boot -- not too mention, they're full of advice on messaging, on the right way to say things

& almost uniformly they're a bit of a slog to get through

this is the thing about today's reactionary centrists -- you'd figure they'd at least write well & . . .

It's the Iraq war mea culpas all over again. Yes you were right but you were right for the wrong reasons.

i think the columnists think they've already understood the dem base, so that's boring, but they're actually radically out of touch

bottom line:

i would like our media betters to show the same interest in mainline liberals as they do in 'real' red-state americans, or the latest 'quirky & provocative' ideas about skull measuring

Fascism's Cassandras Meeting the people who saw this coming (& why other denied the obvious)

i discussed the process of writing it here:

www.politicalphilosophypodcast.com/cassandras

the above is also my answer to the 'why' question - why some got it & others didn't, one thing that really fell out of that research was how simple the 'cassandras' arguments where, how obvious the warning signs

this is very much a story about emotional mental blocks on the other side

& maybe, instead of just dismissing them with nasty stereotypes, you could engage with the voters who saw this for what it was from the start

as far as i'm aware, this was the first reported feature to do that -- why has there been such agressive disinterest?

bsky.app/profile/polp...

like, maybe engage a bit with what's been written on *why* some people got it right & others got it wrong

especially what's been written by the people who got it right - if you're gonna write an article on this, maybe do a bit of prep?

&, on the one hand, i don't want to be too harsh, people are getting there, baby steps & all that

on the other, i can't say i'm overwhelmed with the intellectual rigour of some of these pieces -- example today from the atlantic

there been a bunch of fascism articles recently whose argument goes:

1. the annoying alarmist dipshits said a bunch of stupid stuff

2. yet somehow, what they predicted ended up happening

3. waffle around vaguely for a bit, without ever reconciling 1 & 2

The Americans Who Saw All This Coming—but Were Ignored and Maligned Call them the Cassandras: the people—mostly not white and male—who smelled the fascism all over Trump from jump street. Why were they “alarmists,” and how did “anti-alarmism” become cool?

This article made me feel some solidarity with the other Chicken Littles since Trump descended that effin gold escalator. I'm still angry with the people who wrote me off, but it still feels awful to be able to say, "I told you so."
newrepublic.com/article/2042...

also **every** ideology is 'hazily' defined, perennial bug of mine is when someone notices that one definition is contested & so sniffs at that, or avoids using the world

not realising that, applied universally, that standard would render us unable to talk about politics at all

there's been a slew of these articles recently - & great, i can immodestly claim to be a pioneer of the 'told you so' genre

but i'm not in love with the ones that start with an attack on the people *who where right all along* & then never walk that back later in the article