How much blame do ordinary people deserve for the actions of their governments?
- Thread starter metlman13
- Start date
You can choose to read between the lines or not. Or maybe it means peaceful protests, maybe it means being more politically active.
FTR that advocating for any sort of political violence (and really any violence at all), e.g. overthrowing the government, etc., is against the forum rules. IMO, @crombie has gotten as close to that line as Moderators can allow, and it's best left at that.
Definitely an interesting machine learning exercise, but for purposes of assigning blame? There are a lot of subjectivities involved. For instance, I personally hold Americans more accountable for their government than citizens of other democracies, simply because of America's proud revolutionary tradition and its status as the first modern democracy. Yet in the face of fascism the best we can apparently do is a handful of one-day demonstrations. We can't even throw some fucking tea in the harbor.
Also I wonder if K-means might not be a better algorithm.
Political change and upheaval does not require violence. If you review the German regime in the 1930s and 40s you will see there was not as much protest action until after that regime was entrenched and things couldn't be changed. Granted I didn't do much beyond several University history courses, I have done some research into that period.
Just look at things like the civil rights movement in the 60s in the US. That made it politically possible for LBJ and JFK to actually work toward change. Desegregation wouldn't have been possible unless there was that movement. Granted it wasn't always peaceful.
That is what needs to be happening in the US now. There needs to be persistent public pressure like there was during civil rights. Because then you don't end up with a bridge term with a Democratic Party who do not have the political capital to reverse these changes.
No Kings is a start, but I feel it needs to be much larger in scope. As a non-resident who has a Treaty right to live and work in the US I have to deal with a past port refusal (incorrectly applied by poorly trained border patrol) so I cannot easily join in the protests.
But I have family in Minneapolis who live there based on my same Treaty rights that do. And they are definitely at every protest action they can join. It is unfortunate my Aunt passed of cancer because she would have been all over this and working to get people together. And she lived a life of non-violent community action and protest. You can name pretty much any Indigenous protest in North Dakota, and Minnesota and she was involved in them at some level.
It just seems that there is a general apathy and feeling that since someone was neutral or voted for the other side that that is it and nothing else can be done.
Just look at things like the civil rights movement in the 60s in the US. That made it politically possible for LBJ and JFK to actually work toward change. Desegregation wouldn't have been possible unless there was that movement. Granted it wasn't always peaceful.
That is what needs to be happening in the US now. There needs to be persistent public pressure like there was during civil rights. Because then you don't end up with a bridge term with a Democratic Party who do not have the political capital to reverse these changes.
No Kings is a start, but I feel it needs to be much larger in scope. As a non-resident who has a Treaty right to live and work in the US I have to deal with a past port refusal (incorrectly applied by poorly trained border patrol) so I cannot easily join in the protests.
But I have family in Minneapolis who live there based on my same Treaty rights that do. And they are definitely at every protest action they can join. It is unfortunate my Aunt passed of cancer because she would have been all over this and working to get people together. And she lived a life of non-violent community action and protest. You can name pretty much any Indigenous protest in North Dakota, and Minnesota and she was involved in them at some level.
It just seems that there is a general apathy and feeling that since someone was neutral or voted for the other side that that is it and nothing else can be done.
I agree that political change doesn't always require violence, but Americans seem to be suffering from some kind of learned helplessness where they are incapable of imagining any action aside from voting or civil war. The nonviolent protests of the 50s and 60s were still disruptive, but we can't even manage that. And that is entirely on American voters regardless of party.
I'm sorry but I can't parse that? Maybe it's just me. There were actual, very violent street battles between the fascists and opponents before the Nazis came to power.
From the "War with Iran" thread;
The first is this cherry-picking shows one does have enough knowledge of what Trump says and does to be able make judgement calls. And second, possibly even more important, some of the things labeled as 'jokes' or 'kidding around' are sufficiently lacking in moral and ethical character that even claiming they are acceptable, but so small as to be dismissed, subjects of humor shows similar lacks in those arguing to dismiss those 'jokes.'
You don't get to dismiss or diminish jokes about rape.
And to circle back to ignorance allow Trump voters to use the excuse "He was serious about the good things and "Just Joking/Kidding" about the bad", there are two problems saying that is from ignorance.
The first is this cherry-picking shows one does have enough knowledge of what Trump says and does to be able make judgement calls. And second, possibly even more important, some of the things labeled as 'jokes' or 'kidding around' are sufficiently lacking in moral and ethical character that even claiming they are acceptable, but so small as to be dismissed, subjects of humor shows similar lacks in those arguing to dismiss those 'jokes.'
You don't get to dismiss or diminish jokes about rape.
I should have said large organized protests. There were definitely a lot of smaller unrelated protests of various groups, but remember this is also a simplification to describe that what occurred was ultimately ineffective in stopping that rise to power.
The point is, what happened then did not stop that party from rising to power and changing the nature of politics in Germany for generations.
And in this case even in the US. You would think the embarrassment of the Japanese internment camps would have been enough to not allow history to repeat itself. Yet, here we are.
This post represents the fundamental disconnect that is at the heart of this thread. It's a mistake to think that the people that put Japanese Americans in concentration camps are the same people that were subsequently embarrassed that happened. American are not and never were monolithic. Those that want human rights to exist have always been at odds with those who only care for themselves or some narrowly-scoped community, and there's a lot of people that vaguely think they should be in favor of decency but are easily persuaded otherwise.
Their relative numbers vary over time, and it's not a monotonic progression from self-interest to commitment to humane values. Looked at from a very long lens, you can convince yourself there's been some progress, but the setbacks have been pretty obvious.
Is being in the same country as selfish people the same thing as being a selfish person? How much blame can you heap on people who know their actions are going to be ineffective because so many of their countrymen cannot be depended on to act humanely, or even in their own rational interst?
Whereas, I would argue that the fundamental disconnect is found in the word "blame". Frankly, outside acts of individual criminality, blame doesn't matter. Instead, the real question at hand is one of responsibility and we cannot help but be responsible for the times in which we live. Those times might not be your fault, but they are still your responsibility.
Which is why "how did I allow this to happen? ... We are not the problem," line of thinking is a response that doesn't work. The reality is that something can be not your fault and you can still be the problem, or, at least, part of it. And, because the only thing truely within your control is yourself, the problem is still your responsibility even when you avoid contributing to making it worse.
Which leaves everyone in a difficult position, because, the question then becomes one to each of us: what do we do to live up to responsibilities for problems that are beyond our individual capacity to fix. I would argue that the answer is found in taking what opportunities we encounter to make a difference, convince others, mitigate harm, and generally be the type of people that, if everyone were, the problems would not exist.
But, of course, none of us are capible of doing this all the time, so we all find ourselves in glass houses looking to do as well as we can knowing that it won't be enough.
Last edited:
It is, isn't it.
But, then, perhaps, those things aren't so far outside our control as we might think. After all, no individual could build the Pyrimids, the Empire State Building, or the Hoover Dam. But, if everyone lifts some small part, those things get built. The individual worker is responsible for the construction even though the project is well outside his personal power.
The reality is that, if we want our children to live in a better world, we will only get there by taking responsibility for things that seem outside our control and making it a point to lift some small part of a problem too heavy for us to bear. Then, if enough people take that responsibility, we might find that, by all lifting together, the thing we thought was outside our control is well inside it and we can lift much more than we thought.
This. Americans have tried nothing and they're all out of ideas. The last No Kings had enough turnout to occupy every federal building in D.C., instead we waved signs for an afternoon and went home.
What do you think they should do after they occupy the buildings?
It's not a matter of knowing because it's a hypothetical. I am asking what he think should happen next, since he suggested the idea.
I mean, as an exercise in what we could do after, sure, I suppose that works. Brainstorming is nice.... If that is what you are after.
But, honestly, I don't really think that approach works particularly well. If the problems we faced were merely complicated, such that someone could reasonably answer a question like "what should they do after they occupy the buildings?", then I strongly suspect that we would have already solved it. So, the fact that these problems persist suggests that approach won't work; it suggests complexity rather than complication. Which means that solving them isn't so much a matter of planning two or more steps ahead, but, instead, action, consequence, and reaction. We need to take actions that might have an effect, see what effect they have, and iterate, preferably as quickly as possible as our enemies are trying to do the same.
Moreover, I have an issue with "since he suggested the idea", it feels loaded. And I'm not sure it's loaded in a productive way. It feels like it implies that, unless you can answer questions like "what will fix the problem", then your suggestion might lack merit. But, of course, if we are dealing with a problem which is both too big for any one person to solve and also within the complex domain, well, that's a strategy for failure: complex things tend to be too unpredictable for such questions to work.
All that said, I would also suggest we consider organization. The reality is that, historiclly, the solutions to these kinds of situations pretty much always came as a result of alternative power structures. Some organized structure that people can follow instead of doing what Trump (or the Congressional Democratic Leaership) suggests. That happens because you are organized. Collective responsibility is about lifting together, that can only happen when we lift in the same direction. And I would argue that we are severely lacking in such capibility.
I'm just trying to understand what comes next in a scenario he proposed.
Fair enough, but honestly, there are so many possibilities that I think the attempt is doomed. I'm afraid that with most such actions, the only way to see what comes next is to try it and see what happens. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it gives Republican Congress persons something else to fear, maybe it results in Trump deploying the army and killing people. There are probably lots of other possibilities I didn't mention and there is no good way to decide which ones are most likely.
Well, I am not interested in possibilities or how other people would react. I just want to know what he thinks those people should do next.
And this is the problem I have with you question: you're not interested in the thing that would need to be known in order to determine what those people should do next. The only reasonable answer is: react to how other people react. But, I don't expect you will find that answer satisfactory. This is why the question is loaded.
Which is why I said "Ignorance requires diligence" It takes real effort to ignore evidence and support Trump. No one is "just unaware". It is a choice to completely dismiss or ignore the facts.
Generally speaking, one occupies a government facility and disrupts its function until a stated goal is achieved, such as the racial integration of schools, or the removal of ICE forces from Minneapolis, or the full release of the Epstein files.
But this is a question that, if it wasn't already known, could have been figured out with thirty seconds of googling. So it's a perfect example of the learned helplessness I was referring to earlier. It Democratic voters can't be arsed to read a little wikipedia and figure out how the "peaceful" civil rights movement actually got shit done, we're already fucked.
As it stands, it looks like the plan is to hope there's a blue wave in the midterms. But hope is not a plan, and a blue wave in the midterms gets us next to nothing anyway. So in January when Trump is still in office and still ignoring whatever weaksauce laws Congress manages to pass, don't be surprised when the rest of the world blames both GOP and Democratic voters for the situation.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" isn't an exhonoration.
Democracy is supposed to be a participatory process, if there are no good options within your system get involved and make one. For those of you in the USA that's probably going to involve a mass movement joining the Democratic party at the most local and accessible levels and brainjacking it from the ground up like the Tea Party did to the Republicans except for real grassroots instead of astroturf.
Democracy is supposed to be a participatory process, if there are no good options within your system get involved and make one. For those of you in the USA that's probably going to involve a mass movement joining the Democratic party at the most local and accessible levels and brainjacking it from the ground up like the Tea Party did to the Republicans except for real grassroots instead of astroturf.
The sit-ins from the civil rights places largely involved places like diners, stores, libraries, parks and other public spaces with an aim of challenging segregation in a highly visible way.
What do you think the people you discussed should do after they occupy federal buildings in DC like the Capitol building, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Pentagon, the DOJ buildings, the FBI HQ, the State Department building and other federal buildings in the DC area?
Nothing comes next. Occupying buildings without a clear plan of action is not on the path to any solution to any of America's problems. It's something demonstrators always think of but it never achieves useful goals. It just creates a situation where the status quo forces have legal justification for arresting people, locking them up, and charging them with crimes and portraying them as terrorists or something.
Da Xiang said:
I agree with most of what you said. But, based on experience, I don't think that last statement is true for many (most?) MAGA adherents - they want their own side to win, and don't much care about/think about what the consequences will be for the 'other' sides. This is why many MAGA people will deny they are racists - they actually do mean it.
What counts as their "own side" varies - it could be recovery of the economic/social/political primacy of 'whites', it could the downfall of the government in Cuba or Iran, it could be a return to more conservative social or religious mores, it could be reversal of the un-ignorable global decline of the American Empire. Trump is a great (snake oil) salesman, and successfully peddled hope to a broad and diverse group of people, despite documented and widely reported evidence to the contrary (Project 2025; Jan 6; Term 1; personal moral failings). Kudos to him for pulling that off.
At it's core, what distinguishes MAGA from 'normal' conservative movements (social/moral and a pretense at fiscal) is, IMO, the reactions of a once-privileged and comfortable group who have become sick of their continued decline; sick of being ignored. And are now flailing violently in a (likely too-late) attempt to stop the inevitable. Wide-spread demographic change takes generations and, short of very effectively-executed genocide or ethnic cleansing, cannot be reversed. Genocide or ethnic-cleansing is hard to reliably execute without very high-levels of public support because the extreme-ness of these actions naturally provokes internal resistance.
Last edited:
I've kind of already answered this, apologies if my English isn't clear enough. But my overall point is that there are enough Americans sufficiently unhappy with the regime to effect nonviolent political change, they simply choose not to.
Under any form of government, the collective people bear blame for the actions of their government. How much blame is a subjective assessment - depends on the form of government (which influences the cost that must be borne to stop that government) and the how long that governments actions have persisted.
In a democracy, the collective people bear the greatest blame, because most such systems have means for recalling/re-shaping governments at regular intervals and even in-between elections.
In the US, the President can be impeached. Supreme Court justices can be removed. In some states, recalls can happen.
In the US, none of this happens - Why? Because 2 of those 3 corrective actions requires Congressional action. And the individual members of Congress know/suspect/fear that taking such action will have negative personal consequences of them, i.e. backlash from the voters in their own camp. Congress is where constitutional power mostly lies - and as Congress is directly elected by the 'people', it is the 'people' that deserve the blame for the actions of Congress. Especially when such actions have continued for decades.
The polarization of politics in the US is not the fault of the politicians. It is a reflection of the polarization of the public. This is not a 'left' or the 'right' thing. The American public, in general, has become more extreme, more resistant to compromise, less willing to show grace.
Isn't there a phrase that goes something like, 'in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve'? It's not a big twist to reframe that as 'in a democracy, the people are responsible for the actions of their government'
In a democracy, the collective people bear the greatest blame, because most such systems have means for recalling/re-shaping governments at regular intervals and even in-between elections.
In the US, the President can be impeached. Supreme Court justices can be removed. In some states, recalls can happen.
In the US, none of this happens - Why? Because 2 of those 3 corrective actions requires Congressional action. And the individual members of Congress know/suspect/fear that taking such action will have negative personal consequences of them, i.e. backlash from the voters in their own camp. Congress is where constitutional power mostly lies - and as Congress is directly elected by the 'people', it is the 'people' that deserve the blame for the actions of Congress. Especially when such actions have continued for decades.
The polarization of politics in the US is not the fault of the politicians. It is a reflection of the polarization of the public. This is not a 'left' or the 'right' thing. The American public, in general, has become more extreme, more resistant to compromise, less willing to show grace.
Isn't there a phrase that goes something like, 'in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve'? It's not a big twist to reframe that as 'in a democracy, the people are responsible for the actions of their government'
This is only partly true. Some politicians—Trump being a good example—thrive on polarization. They actively promote it since it gives them an edge. Politicians aren't entities who lack agency—they are part of society. Sometimes a reflection, other times a driving force. And at times both.
Arresting 100,000 people isn't something that can be accomplished quickly or well.
Agree. The point I was trying to make is that such politicians (the ones who drive divisiveness) getting elected is a reflection of the divided nature of the electorate. The politicians did not create the polarization out of nothing.
On this forum we have discussed many new and better voting systems but we’ve never been able to implement them. For generations we’ve discussed various changes to government specifically the electoral college and how the Senate is run and elected and again we have never done anything to change it.
Are we fools? I don't think we’re capable of forming intelligent governments. This may change in the future but for the next few generations I am not optimistic. I do not think that the average citizen has the ability to change the way we're governed in the USA. We can protest and "demand" change, but we're unlikely to see anything take place.
Are we fools? I don't think we’re capable of forming intelligent governments. This may change in the future but for the next few generations I am not optimistic. I do not think that the average citizen has the ability to change the way we're governed in the USA. We can protest and "demand" change, but we're unlikely to see anything take place.
Try reading some MAGA comments or blogs. They absolutely hate liberals and believe we are evil without ever bothering to give any reason at all. They don't need reasons—they simply hate us. I have family—a son—who posts this shit on facebook. He knows I'm a liberal who reads his facebook regularly. But he's too drug addled to realize that he is saying those horrible things about me.
Depends on who and what you mean with that "we" and "never been able to implement them." Alaska uses a ranked-choice system for elections. California & Washington changed to all-parties open primaries for ballot slots. Louisiana and Georgia have a runoff system. Many states have open primaries, either open to the unaffiliated or open to all. I think 5 states (all Southern) use RCV for military and overseas ballots. That could be viewed as a step on the path to opening RCV to all voters. There are multiple other states that use RCV in some local elections. Again, that's a step on the path to RCV for everything, but they're not there yet and no guarantee they ever will be.
But it's not nothing.
edit: added details about LA, GA, and WA
Or until a government considers this a violent event and justifies shooting people... in self-defense, that is.
If they do, there is a very good chance that would be a strategic blunder. It turns out that, typically, when the government kills the peaceful protesters it tends to convince the bystanders that those peaceful protesters were right.
This is a really tricky question. Like... it's very easy to blame someone for a specifically bad decision they made. Oh wow you voted for the dumbest person in the world you're a fucking moron how even. That's easy.
But also like... in aggregate I have trouble blaming people for what's often the result of very entrenched systems of power built specifically to trick people into working against their own interests and pitting different out groups against each other. We can say oh if enough people came together we could trash a broken system but that feels like a gross oversimplification too.
But also like... in aggregate I have trouble blaming people for what's often the result of very entrenched systems of power built specifically to trick people into working against their own interests and pitting different out groups against each other. We can say oh if enough people came together we could trash a broken system but that feels like a gross oversimplification too.
The whole premise is too generalizing and broad that it's ultimately not a very helpful framework. What constitutes an ordinary person? What exactly does the blame mean?
I see people propose that paying taxes to support the government or not rising up will also result in a portion of the blame, but it makes some absurd results. Would an undocumented person share some blame in Trump's actions even if they had no voting power, and were against Trump, if they simply paid their taxes? Would a physically or mentally infirm person share some blame if they are unable to resist? Would a prisoner share in any blame if they participate in prison labor? Would a comatose person who has a portfolio that generates taxable dividends have any blame?
Those battles and the de-facto choice between Soviet-style Communism or Fascism is why Fascism (being compatible with Christianity and and local cultures rather than dedicated to violently destroying the entire capitalist system) had such a large support base. The US has never seen anything remotely close to that choice.
German moderates were incapable of defeating either Communists or Fascists leaving those two as practical choices with a bloody penalty for losing.
Reality made street battles necessary as the only possible end game was living winners and dead losers.