No, I didn't think about Trump at all. You're not wrong. He's effectively doing the same thing with the word "fascism": depriving it of its pejorative force by unanxiously embracing it.
That part of it is an established strategy. We're here, we're queer; get used to it. Blacks themselves using the n word.
My point was really more what I'd like to see as the next step for the likes of AOC and Mamdani: directly attacking the presupposition that "socialist" policies are automatically undemocratic. There are nations where socialist policies are imposed by authoritarian fiat. But anything that passes the legislative process in a democracy is ipso facto fully "democratic." Voters in a democracy can decide to vote themselves whatever they want. If those laws have a "socialist" effect, they are still fully democratic.
In fact, saying that makes me want to add something else to the messaging. So when confronted with "but that's socialist," just say, as above, "Voters in a democracy can vote themselves anything they want that they can get through the established legislative process." Then, "Voters in a democracy can vote to give rich people's money to poorer people." Say that flatly, emotionlessly, but also not smugly--just as a matter of (uncontestable) fact. Don't lower your eyes. Do pause long enough to let people process how radical that will sound (in an ideological climate presently dominated by plutocratic messaging). Then say, "I'm actually counting on democracy. I'm counting on the majority wanting policies that favor the majority." Now (assuming this is Mamdani saying this), "I think that's why people voted for me. I don't think they were voting for socialism, per se. I just think they thought my policy proposals would favor them for a change, rather than favoring the small minority who are already wealthy."
Subvert the antithesis between "widely-beneficial" and "democratic" that the right has established by pitting "democratic" against "socialist." Weave in and out of the word socialist, as though the word itself doesn't matter and all that does matter is policies that favor the majority versus ones that favor the already-rich.
Again, team Trump is already adopting your suggested strategy, to great effect, to defend their fascist policies/practices and fascism. So I guess one of the things your take has me doing, in terms of thought exercises, is to consider the contrast between saying "what I am advocating is
what the majority wants" versus saying "what I am advocating is
what is morally right" or "what I am advocating is
what is practically/subjectively/economically/empirically better for the majority of people"... You seem to be preferring an approach that focuses on the former, ie., stressing
the will of the majority, rather than
the well being of the majority.
The necessary end-point/guiding star of that approach would seem to be focusing on getting more people already on your "side" to
turnout to vote, as opposed to convincing more people that your "side" is right and worthy of their vote. Another way of looking at it would be "
The majority already supports our side, so our side is correct, by virtue of already being in the majority, we just need to motivate them to come out and vote" versus "Our side is morally/empirically correct, we just need to explain that and in so doing, convince/persuade the majority of current voters to see that so they vote for us instead of the opposition".
Coincidentally, I just today stumbled upon an episode of "Surrounded" (a Youtube show where one person sits in the middle and debates an assembly of people who oppose their view) where Liberal political streamer (Tim Miller) was debating a group of 20 younger (than he is) Conservatives. TL;DR My take is that in this particular episode, the featured debater didn't do as well (versus the opposition) as the featured debater usually does on this show. One of the reasons I mention this, is that the point the opposition started with was exactly the point that you raise here (ie., Trump won, twice, so
democracy/the democratic process voted for his agenda). This point was raised pretty strongly and repeatedly by the opposition, and Miller's attempted rebuttal(s) (which was essentially, "b-but the rule of law!") s came off as pretty cliché overall, but also repetitive, tone-deaf, weak, flat and overall unimpressive.
As an aside, we (black people) don't really use the "n word" in the way you describe (redefining a word that was originally an insult into something positive). Its a slur and always was an insult and it's still unambiguously a slur and an insult, including when we (Black people) use it towards each other. The nuance is that as a member of the in-group the insult is directed towards, our use of the insult connects, unifies, equalizes us with other Black people because we are all in it (this inherently lower-societal class) together. The insult is a part of our shared identity, as a lower/oppressed/persecuted/denigrated/mistreated/underprivileged, etc., class of people, which is why its viewed differently for us use it, in contrast to white people, specifically. The "n word" is not, and has not been embraced by black people as a positive/neutral objective group-defining term the way "queer" and "gay" have been. The "power" in the "n-word" is precisely due to its irrevocably negative/denigrating property, shared in common by all black people. Ironically, the negative quality/character of the term is precisely the source of its romanticism. So the "n-word" does not belong in your particular analogy.
