Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[cherdano]

One thing we've learned over the past nine months of Covid is the number of white collar jobs that can be effectively done remotely. Many businesses have actually found that "work from home" has increased productivity!

 

If we double-down on this by having the government provide tax incentives for firms to allow working remotely, we might find that a lot of city dwellers actually prefer to move out into small towns or rural areas. The same 100k/year salary that seems meager in Manhattan or San Francisco goes a long way in the mid-west!

 

Such movement could help improve our democracy by reducing the concentration of Democratic voters in the coastal cities, and the influx of spending from new, more affluent residents in some parts of the country could revitalize their economies as well. At the same time, this could reduce pressure on the sky-high housing prices in major cities, allowing the people who really want/need to live there a little breathing room.

I am really not sure about this. Last time I checked, most of my high-tech friends living in San Francisco didn't actually work in San Francisco, they worked in Palo Alto. Which (as awm of course knows) is a serious commute. Remote working post-pandemic means they can enjoy San Francisco coffee shops and bars without having to commute.

 

However, I also know plenty of people who moved out of San Francisco - to find a place where they can afford a slightly bigger apartment or house once they have a family.

 

As long as San Francisco zoning doesn't change - at first approximation it's illegal to build additional housing anywhere in the city - it's population essentially won't change. There is essentially a fixed amount of housing, and demand will only determine the price at which you can get it, not the number of people who will get it.

 

The same applies more or less to all major US cities.

[y66]

Governors Call On Gretchen Whitmer To Shut Down Their States So Residents Won’t Get Mad At Them.

Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger said yesterday that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham pressured him to find a way to toss legally cast absentee ballots to reverse President Trump’s loss in the state. Man, just when you think Lindsey Graham couldn’t sink any lower — why would you think that?

[y66]

On Tuesday, the Senate defeated President Donald Trump’s latest unqualified pick for the Federal Reserve Board — for now, at least.

 

The chamber is split 50-50 at this point over the nominee, Judy Shelton, but two Republicans who support her, Florida’s Rick Scott and Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, were absent; so was one Republican who opposes her, Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander. With Vice President-elect (and current Senator) Kamala Harris flying in to join the unanimously opposed Democrats, Republicans didn’t have the numbers on a procedural vote to get to a tie and allow outgoing Vice President Mike Pence to cast the deciding vote.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will be able to try again, but it’s not clear if he’ll prevail. The problem is that with three Republicans opposed, McConnell has a deadline — because new Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, who won a special election to fill the remainder of the late John McCain’s term, is scheduled to be sworn in when the Senate returns after Thanksgiving. That will reduce the Republican majority to 52-48 for the rest of the session, and provide the 51st vote against Shelton.

 

Meanwhile, Grassley announced on Tuesday that he has tested positive for the virus, so he’s unlikely to return from Iowa in the next week. McConnell will thus need for Scott to return, Alexander to stay out and everyone else to stick around in the run-up to Thanksgiving in order to get a 49-49 tie that Pence can break.

 

The fight is important because the Fed is important, although political scientist Sarah Binder is surely correct in thinking that Shelton, who holds highly unorthodox views on monetary policy, would be unlikely to have much influence at the Fed. But aside from its substantive importance, this conflict confirms again what we already knew about Trump and his party.

 

The president first announced that he’d propose Shelton in July of last year, and her nomination was going nowhere until the election. Throughout Trump’s term, Senate Republicans have repeatedly resisted nominees who deviate too far from party orthodoxy. When it comes to the Fed, that has included conservatives such as Stephen Moore and Herman Cain. They didn’t have standard Republican views (or conventional qualifications for the job), and Republican senators had no difficulty pushing back against Trump’s preferences. It’s a good reminder that when it comes to policy, Trump’s clout within the party has been meager at best — partly because he never really learned how to use his office to build influence.

 

After he lost the election to Joe Biden, however, the calculus changed. Instead of comparing Shelton to an alternative Republican nominee, the Senate majority now faced a very difference choice — as Binder puts it, “her confirmation would serve GOP interests by limiting Biden’s ability to make inroads in (re)shaping the Board.” So better a Republican they don’t like than taking their chances on a Democratic nominee.

 

That may offer a good preview of what’s in store if Republicans win one or both of the Senate runoffs and retain their majority. Just as they’re willing to sit back and allow Trump to prevent the presidential transition to begin, presumably because they’re willing to accept some risks to the nation in order to undermine Biden, it’s possible that a Republican majority in 2021 would simply refuse to consider many of Biden’s nominations. McConnell will probably have to confirm most of the new president’s cabinet, but he may attempt to simply blockade many other key posts. Even with a 52-48 majority, he’d still need to keep almost his entire conference on board to succeed. But the strength of a blockade strategy is that it prevents two or three Republicans from just joining Democrats in a floor vote; they’d have to find ways to get the nominations to the floor in the first place.

 

Of course, an extensive blockade would also harm the nation by leaving the executive branch without confirmed officials in key positions, and it would continue McConnell’s assault on democratic norms and values. There’s nothing at all wrong with a Senate majority defeating some presidential nominees, and bargaining hard to find acceptable compromises; executive-branch departments and agencies, after all, respond to both Congress and the president. Perhaps that’s all McConnell will do. But his track record suggests that he’d prefer slash-and-burn to negotiate-and-compromise, with most Republicans happy to go along. His (and their) sudden embrace of a nominee for the Fed Board whom they previously regarded as a kook — just in order to prevent Biden from having a vacancy — suggests that’s the direction we’re headed if McConnell is still the majority leader in the next Congress.

Welcome to the next four years.

[y66]

I am going to hold out hope that @govkristinoem can do the right thing and provide COVID leadership at a state level. Healthcare, education, the business sector - everyone needs you to surround yourself with the smartest people in the room and lead.

I have a night off from the hospital. As I’m on my couch with my dog I can’t help but think of the Covid patients the last few days. The ones that stick out are those who still don’t believe the virus is real. The ones who scream at you for a magic medicine and that Joe Biden is going to ruin the USA. All while gasping for breath on 100% Vapotherm. They tell you there must be another reason they are sick. They call you names and ask why you have to wear all that “stuff” because they don’t have COViD because it’s not real. Yes. This really happens. I can’t stop thinking about it. These people really think this isn’t going to happen to them. And then they stop yelling at you when they get intubated. It’s like a f#cking horror movie that never ends. There’s no credits that roll. You just go back and do it all over again.

The South Dakota I love seems far away right now.

[Winstonm]

This is why it is difficult to try to reason with the right wing - people in leadership positions who show who they are continue to be re-elected on their actions of placing America inferior to their own raw power.

[pilowsky]

This is why it is difficult to try to reason with the right wing - people in leadership positions who show who they are continue to be re-elected on their actions of placing America inferior to their own raw power.

 

You must be joking. You're a bridge player. How can you seriously ask a question like that on a forum like this? I'm still waiting to see anyone agree about anything at all in response to any sort of argument, rational, reasonable or otherwise.

[Winstonm]

Even in today's political climate, I'm certain that statements and questions are not the same thing; direct questions end with (?).

[Cyberyeti]

No, but it's a good point. I have a long standing opinion that when the defense fails to set a contract that should have gone down, the first person who starts yelling is the person who made the error.

 

Unless they're a married couple, then it's always the same person's fault according to the other one, regardless of who made the actual mistake.

[pilowsky]

Even in today's political climate, I'm certain that statements and questions are not the same thing; direct questions end with (?).

 

Implied (?)

[Winstonm]

https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/qMarks.asp

[pilowsky]

https://www.grammarb...tion/qMarks.asp

 

where's smerriman when we need him?

[barmar]

Ken, I don't think your example story fits the circumstances. To make your story work, the husband and wife could still visit the marriage counselor but the problem would be that the wife has announced that she is moving to Guyana with Jim Jones because he is the true messenger of god and her husband is the enemy of Jim Jones and the only possible solution is for her husband to abandon his own views and join her.

 

Unless her husband is a trained deprogrammer, there is not much for him to accomplish, regardless of how much self-examination he does.

 

PS: I agree in principle with conversation and willingness to change - but there comes a time when that is ineffective - like when dealing with a schizophrenic in full-blown crisis.

I think the point of Ken's story is that the husband doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, so he doesn't need to change.

 

The relevancy is that both sides of our divided society think that they're right. So they each think to themselves "There's nothing I can do to solve this problem peacefully, because I'm OK and those folks just won't listen to reason", so nothing gets done except lots of arguing. If any progress is to be made, it must be by getting rid of the other side, or at least suppressing their influence.

[pilowsky]

Unfortunately, the 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot be applied to countries, unless anarchy is a preferred form of government.

A couple can be advised to go their separate ways - this happens quite commonly after marriage guidance fails.

After the American civil war, there was an uneasy union. The two parties are yet to resolve their differences.

 

Perhaps, in the end, that's why Rhett left and didn't give a damn. Of course, It was a little before my time but it makes you wonder.

[kenberg]

I think the point of Ken's story is that the husband doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, so he doesn't need to change.

 

The relevancy is that both sides of our divided society think that they're right. So they each think to themselves "There's nothing I can do to solve this problem peacefully, because I'm OK and those folks just won't listen to reason", so nothing gets done except lots of arguing. If any progress is to be made, it must be by getting rid of the other side, or at least suppressing their influence.

 

Yes, that was my point, plus a little more. I think that many, many, many people do not think all that much about politics. Even in this time of high voter turnout, many didn't vote. There are various reasons why this is so, but at any rate it is so,. Compare with sports. As a youngster, I was very interested in baseball. The St. Paup Saints were a Brooklyn Dodgers farm club, the Minneapolis Millers were a New York Giants farm club, I still recall a short time when a guy named Willie Mays was playing for the millers. Today, I can't name a single player on the Ravens (oops, baseball, so Orioles. But that emphasizes my point) team (we live close to Baltimore). People are interested in some things, not in other things

 

And so back to politics, I'll give a story (told recently in another context) about my childhood. I was 11 when the Korean War started in June of 1950, and that fall the teacher was explaining about the Red Menace. I had been closely following the war (for example I recall the Inchon landing and the diagrams showing how it was carried out). . My mother was infuriated about what she saw as the teacher trying to get us kids all in a frenzy. I wasn't in a frenzy but it still led to an argument with my mother claiming that all wars are about oil, me claiming that there was no oil in Korea or at least not enough to fight over. The point is that I was 11, my mother's education included about a year of high school, neither of us knew a hell of a lot. Many people are of this sort. In 152, Eisenhower said "I will go to Korea". That sufficed for many, it meant he would take care of it. How? Nobody asked.

 

People don't fundamentally change. We have social media to make a mess of things but we are still the same species. Some people are open to discussion, some aren't. But for most of us, that discussion has to be in short sentences or at least in short paragraphs. "I will go to Korea", by the guy who had been in charge of D-Day, sufficed for many.

 

Short version: We don't succeed by writing people off. Some maybe have to be written off, too bad but true, but not wholesale. That's a mistake. It misjudges people and it loses votes.

[Winstonm]

I think the point of Ken's story is that the husband doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, so he doesn't need to change.

 

The relevancy is that both sides of our divided society think that they're right. So they each think to themselves "There's nothing I can do to solve this problem peacefully, because I'm OK and those folks just won't listen to reason", so nothing gets done except lots of arguing. If any progress is to be made, it must be by getting rid of the other side, or at least suppressing their influence.

Obviously, I understood Ken's point - it wasn't subtle.

 

But it is wrong to claim each side thinks they are right. Only one side is open to change, new ideas, admitting error, on and on.

[Cyberyeti]

Obviously, I understood Ken's point - it wasn't subtle.

 

But it is wrong to claim each side thinks they are right. Only one side is open to change, new ideas, admitting error, on and on.

 

Maybe in the US. Here there are still a load of people on the left who are convinced Jeremy Corbyn is the messiah rather than a naughty boy, despite the results of the Labour anti-Semitism enquiry (which was obviously some sort of plot).

[pilowsky]

Maybe in the US. Here there are still a load of people on the left who are convinced Jeremy Corbyn is the messiah rather than a naughty boy, despite the results of the Labour anti-Semitism enquiry (which was obviously some sort of plot).

 

Just the Labour Party?

As opposed to the rest of the famously pro-Semitic aristocrats in the UK!

[Winstonm]

At what point does this become attempted sedition and a felony with a penalty of 20 years?

 

 

DETROIT (AP) — President Donald Trump summoned Michigan's Republican legislative leaders to the White House for an extraordinary meeting Friday amid a longshot GOP push to subvert the democratic process that handed the battleground state to Democrat Joe Biden.

 

Two people familiar with the matter told The Associated Press that Trump invited Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and House Speaker Lee Chatfield. They agreed to go, according to a state official aware of the leaders' plans. The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing private conversations.

 

 

[helene_t]

Just the Labour Party?

As opposed to the rest of the famously pro-Semitic aristocrats in the UK!

The problem with the Labour Party is that they are not generally hostile to specific ethnic, racial or religious groups, so the fact that the party if full of anti-semites stands out.

 

That BoJo insults Jewish people, too, is not remarkable since he insults many other groups also so people assume that bigotry is just his way of talking and it doesn't mean anything.

[pilowsky]

The problem with the Labour Party is that they are not generally hostile to specific ethnic, racial or religious groups, so the fact that the party if full of anti-semites stands out.

 

That BoJo insults Jewish people, too, is not remarkable since he insults many other groups also so people assume that bigotry is just his way of talking and it doesn't mean anything.

 

I know what you mean just like Dirty Harry - Hates everyone - still, everyone needs a partner...

[kenberg]

At what point does this become attempted sedition and a felony with a penalty of 20 years?

 

 

 

 

More details here.

There should be a push to have each Senator say whether they are ok with this or not ok with this. A simple question and a simple yes or no should be expected. On the record.

I hope the legal system can handle this but we also need clear answers from our elected officials on where they stand.

The answer should not be difficult for anyone with even a modest sense of responsibility.

But many will try to duck.

No ducking allowed.

The way to prevent ducking is to make it clear that not answering will be taken to mean that yes, they are ok with this.

[cherdano]

More details here.

There should be a push to have each Senator say whether they are ok with this or not ok with this. A simple question and a simple yes or no should be expected. On the record.

I hope the legal system can handle this but we also need clear answers from our elected officials on where they stand.

The answer should not be difficult for anyone with even a modest sense of responsibility.

But many will try to duck.

No ducking allowed.

The way to prevent ducking is to make it clear that not answering will be taken to mean that yes, they are ok with this.

 

Here are some answers:

Mitt Romney

Ben Sasse

 

Yes, two is very short of 53, but it is better than zero. I hope we can give Romney and Sasse credit for this. It does make a different what Republican elected officials say in this situation.

[y66]

More details here.

There should be a push to have each Senator say whether they are ok with this or not ok with this. A simple question and a simple yes or no should be expected. On the record.

I hope the legal system can handle this but we also need clear answers from our elected officials on where they stand.

The answer should not be difficult for anyone with even a modest sense of responsibility.

But many will try to duck.

No ducking allowed.

The way to prevent ducking is to make it clear that not answering will be taken to mean that yes, they are ok with this.

Good idea in principle but how to get a vote on the Senate floor?

 

You know the pressure to stop clowning around is approaching critical mass when even Peggy Noonan and the editorial board at the Murdoch-owned WSJ are calling Trump on his sh#t. Another week and even the trolls on this thread will be saying enough is enough.

[Winstonm]

At what point does this become attempted sedition and a felony with a penalty of 20 years?

 

 

 

I bothered to find out the answer - criminal sedition requires actions by force. I doubt if by force of office has ever been tested by the courts.

[y66]

I often write a fun — well, I find it fun — Thanksgiving column about all the stuff that political junkies enjoy about politics in the U.S. With things a lot less fun at the moment, I’ll risk being a little sappy. Here’s an early Thanksgiving column of appreciation to those who make democracy real.

 

I’ll start with the politicians. There are more than half a million elected officials in the U.S., from members of Congress to state legislatures to all sorts of local governments — cities, counties, school boards, various authorities and special districts and what have you. Just a blizzard of offices, and people to fill them. Sure, a lot of those folks don’t really consider themselves politicians, but that’s just fudging with definitions.

 

On top of the elected officials, there are lots of people serving on all sorts of government and quasi-government advisory boards or special committees or other bodies. Governing in the U.S., especially at the local level, is often very much “by the people” rather than by bureaucrats. Then there are those who write to their elected officials; who testify at various hearings and meetings; who get involved in interest groups and try to influence governments at various levels. All that is self-government too.

 

Up next? Elections, and those who get involved in them by doing more than just voting. Activists, large and small donors, campaign professionals, formal party officials and staff, people on the campaign side of organized interest groups, and more. Again, we’re talking huge numbers here, especially when looked at over time.

 

Somewhere between governing and elections is the direct action of protests, where even more citizens find ways to get involved — the last four years were especially notable for demonstrations and other peaceful political action.

 

And let’s not forget the “neutral” and the partisan press. Alas, local news has fallen on very hard times, and robust local democracy has suffered as a result. But this is generally not the fault of reporters and their editors, who (despite what the outgoing president says) are essential to making the republic work.

 

All of that, and more, makes for what can at its best be an incredibly rich, textured, participatory exercise in government by the people. Madisonian institutions can be extremely frustrating. So many veto points. So much seemingly unnecessary complexity. But the U.S. system also excels at creating initiation points, which (when they work well) make it far easier to get involved than in systems that are more streamlined and hierarchical.

 

Of course, over the history of the nation, all of this has rarely worked at its best, and often hasn’t worked nearly well enough. Many scholars tend to agree that the U.S. wasn’t much a democracy at all until 1965: It’s not self-government when large groups of people are excluded from public life. To me, knowing the history of how precarious various parts of democracy have been only increases my appreciation for whatever success we’ve had — and for the millions of patriots who have made it possible.

 

I guess the point is: Democracy only exists to the extent that citizens actually take part in it. The best a constitutional system can do is to provide space for politics. It can’t force people to get involved or, for that matter, prevent democracy from being eroded by those who would subvert it. And so, to those who continue to make self-government a reality in the U.S., I extend my deepest appreciation. Thank you.

Ditto for forum mates who have made self government a reality in the wc.