The great constitutionalists, from Aristotle to Montesquieu to Madison, believed that the populace should have a voice, but they also thought, with Cicero, that the well-being of the people was the highest law. Survival and flourishing is most important, not pandering to popular passions.
Any small “r” republican knows that a good society divides up power among authorities, repositories, and mysteries, such that all are checked and balanced; neither the bounder nor the mobile vulgus can become tyrannical. Pluralist theory seeks both safety and stability in multiplicity. The wisdom of crowds—and brokering institutions.
Then you have 10 nazi sympathizers sitting at the serious table. Seems like a real bad idea to me. It’s probably better to know who is a nazi, which ie easier when they are out in the open so you can throw them in jail.
This portrayal of the political divide being simple opinions isn’t accurate. It’s not a simple difference of opinion when one side is ok with, or actively trying for your extermination.
I think legitimate political opinions (not nazi/nazi sympathetic) should be allowed to have a voice. But a blanket acceptance of all opinions is how we get to the current situation with neo nazis gaining power and influence.
There are conservatives that think that non-heteronormative people shouldn’t exist and shouldn’t have rights. You’re right that isn’t a matter of opinion, those people shouldn’t have power.
But you (impersonal you, not you specifically) give those conservatives that power. If we don’t allow discourse with conservatives in good faith for things that a just differences in opinion such as gun control measures shouldn’t infringe their right to own a gun, health care reform should be incremental and gradual and not separate them from their preferred private practitioner, or that private industry might be better stewards of certain services than public government, without calling them fascist/nazi/whatever, then expect those conservatives to have discourse with someone who will.
And I won’t put this blame entirely on the left wing, the internet has made it easier than ever for conservatives (and progressives, to a lesser extent) to pick the “junk food” option of listening to only voices that validate their beliefs instead of challenging them. And alt-right and neo nazi movements have capitalized on the populist zeitgeist to capture “junk food” conservatives
I am being idealistic for sure, but i think its equally nihilistic to think all conservatives are OK with or are actively trying for extermination of non-white non-cis people. I think we will have to disagree and thats ok.
I don’t think that’s something that we (general we) are failing to do. Conservatives aren’t getting called fascists for their opinions on gun control or privatization. They get called fascists for taking away peoples rights, for their open calls to end democracy, for their defense of neo nazis, etc.
Not all Germans who voted for Hitler were actively trying for the extermination of jews. It’s not an issue of what they are actively trying for or want (at least for a large chunk of them).
This issue is that they are ok with supporting politicians who are actively trying for or want extermination.
That is the hard part, most liberals don’t want to have a conversation, they want to scream fascist/nazi or whatever.
I would say both sides are just as guilty. Twitter, Reddit, Lemmy are all know for extreme left views.