Regarding the disgruntled/confused radical right and the Golden Rule

Authoritarianism: the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom; lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others, i.e., ignoring majority public opinion

The NYT reports (not paywalled) about two surprisingly large groups of grumpy/confused MAGA voters:

What Polls Say About a Key Group: 

Begrudging Trump Voters

The race for the White House couldn’t be much closer. With less than two months to go until Election Day, the latest New York Times/Siena College polling has Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in a campaign with no clear front-runner. Beyond the national numbers, there are key battleground state polls that suggest the same state of play, with Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump essentially evenly matched.

In a race this tight, even a seemingly small development could matter a lot. Swaying a few thousand voters in the right places could make all the difference. In a race with a large portion of voters saying they’ll never vote for Mr. Trump and a nearly-as-large portion saying they’ll never vote for Ms. Harris, the range of potential movement in the electorate is limited.

Love him or hate him, people already know how they feel about Mr. Trump. In the Times/Siena poll, only 9 percent of likely voters say they still need to learn more about him. [Only about 9%?? That’s freaking huge!] If you like him today, you’re almost certainly choosing him. However, there’s a small group I’ll call “begrudging Trump voters” — those who dislike him but plan to vote for him anyway. In the Times/Siena poll, about 7 percent of those who said they would vote for Mr. Trump fell into this category; he gets their votes even though they also say they think of him unfavorably.

These begrudging Trump voters are the most important audience for Ms. Harris to speak to when the candidates debate on Tuesday night. What does she need to do to sway them? I believe the key will be credibly conveying a sense of confident moderation, as a matter of both ideology and temperament.

About 9% still need to learn more about DJT. About 7% dislike him but will voted for him anyway, most presumably seeing DJT as the lesser of two evils. Given how close the election looks set to be, those are two huge groups of voters.

In my opinion, that says a lot about politics. It's not much different than what various groups of people say the bible says or Jesus said. Politics really is like religion in important ways.

It also says a lot about the staggering power of dark free speech. What about rhetoric from DJT, the GOP  and much, maybe most, of the MAGA rank and file? It clearly is far darker, far more disrespectful and far more explicitly threatening compared to Harris and Dem rhetoric. That is a fact, not an opinion.

At the recent Dem convention, both Barak Obama and Bill Clinton said that we need to apply the golden rule to our fellow voters. Give them respect, listen to their grievances and worries, and act in grace and good will with genuine empathy for their intense anger at and fear of political opposition, and their deep distrust of us in the opposition and our preferred political candidates. 

☹️

🤨

😠

🥺

🤔

😱

I confess to a gush of emotional reactions to the reality of authoritarian radical right tactics like dark rhetoric juxtaposed with the much lighter rhetoric of the Dems and the left generally. The preferred DJT/GOP/MAGA policies among many or most on the radical right are openly bigoted (anti-LGBQT, etc.), in open denial of global warming, openly anti-democracy, openly anti-civil liberties, clearly deeply corrupt (anti-rule of law, pro-secrecy, etc.) and deeply authoritarian (a mix of autocratic, plutocratic and Christian theocratic). 

From what I can tell, the feelings, grievances and worries of most of the MAGA rank and file are significantly to mostly based on lies, slanders and flawed, crackpot conspiracy theories and/or reasoning. By contrast, most of the elites are not deceived like the rank and file. They know exactly what they are doing, killing democracy and civil liberties, and what they want, i.e., a lot more wealth and power. How can a person address a grievance that is based on a lie?

Barak and Bill want us go high and to apply the Golden Rule to people who support bigoted, radical right kleptocratic authoritarianism. Is that mostly a form of appeasement or mostly something else?

Can DJT or MAGA authoritarianism be appeased? Will applying the Golden Rule make a detectable difference? I do not know the answer (but have opinions) and cannot change anything. All I can do is watch how this plays out.

Does anyone sense a reality and/or logic disconnect between what Barak and Bill urge and the reality of MAGA? I think there is non-trivial disconnect. So, one final thought in the form of a Perplexity Q&A:

Q: In general, has it been possible to appease and blunt the forces of authoritarianism when they attack non-authoritarian regimes?

A: In general, appeasing or blunting authoritarian forces when they attack non-authoritarian regimes has not been an effective long-term strategy. There are several reasons for this:

Emboldening Authoritarian Aggression 

Attempts to appease authoritarian regimes often embolden them to become more aggressive rather than moderating their behavior. Authoritarian leaders tend to view concessions as signs of weakness that can be exploited further. This can lead to escalating demands and attacks on democratic institutions.

Undermining Democratic Norms
Making concessions to authoritarian forces often requires compromising core democratic principles and norms. This can weaken the foundations of democratic systems from within, playing into the authoritarian playbook of gradually eroding checks and balances.

Salami Tactics 

Modern authoritarian leaders often use "salami tactics," chipping away at democracy incrementally rather than through sudden takeovers. Appeasing individual actions fails to address this gradual erosion and can allow authoritarians to consolidate power over time.

Attacking Vulnerable Groups

Authoritarian regimes frequently scapegoat and attack vulnerable communities to sow division. Appeasing such attacks on minority groups contradicts core democratic values of equal rights and protections.

International Collaboration 

Authoritarian regimes increasingly collaborate to support each other and undermine democracy globally. Appeasing individual authoritarian actors fails to address this broader trend of authoritarian cooperation.

Enduring Impact 

Even if an individual authoritarian leader is appeased or removed from power, the institutional damage and ideological forces they unleashed can persist long after. This makes it difficult to fully blunt authoritarian forces through short-term concessions.

Rather than appeasement, effectively countering authoritarianism generally requires robustly defending democratic institutions, protecting civil liberties, addressing underlying societal grievances, and coordinating internationally to support democracy. While engagement and diplomacy have roles to play, history suggests that appeasing authoritarian aggression often leads to further democratic backsliding rather than moderating authoritarian behavior.