Either You Mean Fascism or You Don't (Tad Stoermer)

[LearnedHand]

https://open.substack.com/pub/tadstoermer/p/either-you-mean-fascism-or-you-dont

I really appreciate Stoermer and those like him who are ringing the alarm bells about why simply waiting for the next election is not an adequate response to the TSF “administration.”

Establishment Democrats are using the word fascism. Not fringe members. Not the people party leadership keeps at a careful distance so streaming news anchors and talking heads can reassure viewers that the adults are in the room. The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Sitting senators. The chair of the Democratic National Committee. They are telling the public that what the United States faces is not a bad president, an erratic executive, or an unusually dangerous political opponent. They are telling you it is fascism.

That word is not a mood. It is not a synonym for cruelty or corruption or reactionary politics. It points to a specific threat with a specific historical record. And that record is unambiguous about what happens when politicians identify the danger correctly and then insist on sticking to the rules of normal politics anyway.

[Walleye]

1. Any suggestion on a course of action?

[LearnedHand]

4. Stoermer's suggestion

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot invoke the tradition of anti-fascism while remaining committed to the etiquette of managed dissent. They cannot summon the memory of Europe in the 1930s and refuse the central lesson of that history: once the threat is real, half-measures do not hold the line. That is where republics die.

If they mean it, act like it. If they don’t, say so. Because we already know what happens when political actors see the danger, name it, and still refuse to leave the boundaries of a normal politics that no longer exists. We know what comes after that. And we know what it costs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. I don't see that as actual suggestions

That may be because he doesn't want to commit to writing the conclusion that you must break laws to defeat fascists who are in charge of a country. It may also mean he's just thinking of things like "expand the Supreme Court to get rid of the conservative majority", but he implies "something" needs to be done before future elections, so that seems like something else.

[Buzz cook]

7. Take to the streets.

It increases the number of people that know they are not alone. That has a carry on effect which gets more people involved creating a virtuous circle.

[Walleye]

8. That's a good suggestion, but many of us are old

[leftstreet]

3. DURec

[Swede]

5. This Bluesky thread is about what "go along, to get along" gets us.

Remember, folks! If and when Democrats ever take power again in Washington, it's VERY important that they respect all the norms and laws that the Republicans are shattering.

When Trump pardons everyone? Oh well, nothing we can do! Visiting consequences upon the lawbreakers would be unlawful!

— The Frito Bandito (@thefritobanditoo.bsky.social) 2026-03-18T22:44:31.955Z

[Walleye]

9. I'm sensing a little sarcasm in that post