this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
147 points (95.7% liked)

News

32974 readers
5518 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As President Trump’s consolidation of autocratic power gains steam, it’s often been argued that the failures of liberal governance meaningfully helped to bring us to this moment. In this reading, the Biden administration—and other Democratic leaders in recent years—allowed well-intentioned caution and respect for parliamentary safeguards and procedures to hobble ambition, frustrating voters and making them easier prey for demagogues peddling authoritarian governance as our civic cure-all.

This reading has now picked up the endorsement of a surprising group: A large bloc of former high-level members of the Biden administration.

The left-leaning Roosevelt Institute is releasing a major new report Tuesday—with input from nearly four dozen former senior Biden officials across many agencies—that seeks to diagnose the administration’s governing mistakes and failures. The report, provided in advance to The New Republic, may be the most ambitious effort involving Biden officials to determine what went wrong and why.

In the report, Biden officials extensively identify big failings in governing and in the execution of the politics around big decisions—but with an eye toward creating the beginnings of a Project 2029 agenda. The result is a kind of proto-blueprint for Democratic governance to show that it can work the next time the party has power.

“We must reckon honestly with how we got here and why the American public has been so frustrated with these institutions for so long,” Roosevelt Institute president Elizabeth Wilkins writes in the report’s introduction. “The rising authoritarianism we see today shows us the stakes.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago (3 children)

This article lacks material analysis. Fascism is on the rise because it is the tool that capitalists use when workers gain class consciousness and start to demand more equality. The second Bernie became popular, a backlash like this was inevitable.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

This article lacks material analysis

? It's based on a report that was just released. It examines and critiques real life examples of mistakes within the previous administration. Building a More Effective, Responsive Government: Lessons Learned from the Biden-Harris Administration

One of its most compelling conclusions is that the Biden administration seemed reluctant to engage in “picking the fights worth having” and sometimes took refuge in incremental policy gains due to a self-limiting “risk aversion.” One senior official is quoted suggesting the White House didn’t give adequate support to agency leaders who thought they had a policy stance providing an opening to “have a fight and show who you’re for.”

Not standing up for the values that are supposed to be at the party's roots, and acknowledging that doing the most basic wasn't enough to lead the country where it needed to go, seems like a pretty perfect summary of why most people dislike establishment Democrats.

The second Bernie became popular, a backlash like this was inevitable.

No the second we became ok with normalizing executive overreach, ignoring checks and balances, and unilateral decisions by the president, it was inevitable. It's not a backlash when every president in modern history basically paved the way for it to happen.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Material analysis is not so much concerned with the actions of individuals or even entire administrations. It is more so a lens to view an entire society. When I say that the backlash was inevitable, I am talking about the rise of fascism generally, not just the rise of Trump. So yes, the policies of previous politicians did “pave the way” for Trump, but that didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened because the capitalist rulers saw that their position was at risk, so they exerted pressure to consolidate more power (i.e. fascism).

[–] bagsy@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I dont think it was bernie that lit the fuse, i think it was having a black man as president. It made so many people unreasonably angry, they just couldnt accept it. Thats when the temperature started rising.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

i'd argue it was more having the first black president running on a campaign of HOPE AND CHANGE

then...doing absolutely fuck all but furthering the status quo, completely unjustified warmongering, unsustainable ratfucking etc.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The second Bernie became popular, a backlash like this was inevitable.

A material analysis of Bernie Sanders would rule out a backlash because he's never held power or set policy.

But even if you rate effectiveness by how much they aggravate the right, politicians like Pelosi prove that being effective is more threatening than being left. Politicians like Obama prove that being black is more threatening than being radical.

I think you'll find Bernie Sanders rates far higher in MAGA circles than Pelosi or Obama. Because he doesn't represent any threat to them. (check out his defense of Trump's immigration policy)

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Reactionaries don't need the actual existence of revolutionary power to pull the fascist card, they just need the threat of it. I use Bernie as an example of rising class consciousness, not because he is some Great Man who is the epicenter of history.