Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

I can't remember the details, maybe it was a cartoon, maybe an old movie, but a guy comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man. The man in the bed jumps up running for the door shouting "It's not me". Groucho Marx maybe. It seems that's where a number of Republicans are with Jan 6. I haven't read, and won't be reading, the thousands of pages from Meadows. But as I get it, they have explicit messages signed and dated about who urged what as the insurrection was approaching and then underway. And then who did, or did not, do what to address it. From your post: "Jordan texted Trump's White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on November 5, offering a plan for how Vice President Mike Pence could toss out Biden's electors and throw the election to Trump." That's pretty explicit. I gather there are numerous messages, signed and dated, with "dated" meaning to the minute, of Republicans pleading with Trump, as the insurrection unfolded, to address the problem. There is really no place to hide. Jan 6 happened because Trump and his supporters wanted it to happen. Pence survived, but some cops didn't, and whether democracy survives is still an unsettled matter. "It's not me"? Yes, it is.

[y66]

I don’t have a lot to say about the latest blowup between Joe Manchin and Democratic Party leaders over Build Back Better except to say that I think the whole notion of “leverage” in this situation is a farce. Joe Biden carried 25 states in 2020, and those states send 47 Democratic Party Senators to Washington. It is very lucky for progressives that Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown choose not to espouse significant deviations from the Biden agenda (though Democrats may come to regret that if those seats flip GOP in 2024), and they are also lucky that Joe Manchin is much more progressive than the median voter in West Virginia.

 

But unlike in Arizona where you plausibly could do better than Kyrsten Sinema, any other person who represents West Virginia in the Senate will be worse than Manchin. Indeed, we’re actually lucky that Shelley Moore Capito is a relatively moderate member.

 

Democrats and progressives are lucky to have Manchin in that job. It is not his fault that progressives couldn’t persuade the voters of Maine or Florida or North Carolina that their agenda was worth supporting in a way that would have made him irrelevant.

 

I also think that Manchin’s stated objections to the House Build Back Better draft are perfectly consistent with the Senate passing an excellent piece of legislation. The back-and-forth between him and the White House suggests some deeper and more profound breakdown, but that is a problem for a psychotherapist. All I can really do at this point is take everyone at their word. So here’s how I see it:

 

Months ago, Democratic leaders (over what we now know to have been Joe Manchin’s explicit wishes) unveiled a $3.5 trillion package chock full of all kinds of stuff.

 

Moderates balked, and the White House (trying to come closer to Manchin) announced support for a framework closer to $1.75 trillion.

 

House leadership, not wanting to actually cut half the stuff from the $3.5 trillion package, instead brought the headline price down largely by scheduling lots of programs to phase-in and phase-out on a weird schedule.

The recent breakdown is that Manchin said no to that idea. He will back $1.75 trillion in spending, which is a lot. But he wants it to actually be $1.75 trillion in spending.

 

Progressives can be mad about this, but the fact is that $1.75 trillion in spending without phase-out gimmicks is better on the merits than what House leadership put together. Manchin is not ruining anything by pointing this out. He is making life harder for his colleagues in the sense that they will have to pick winners and losers. But it’s much better to do six good programs than to half-ass a dozen of them. And the reality is that $1.75 trillion is a lot of money; you can do a lot of good stuff for $1.75 trillion.

 

Here’s what I’m sad about, though: the expanded Child Tax Credit is just way too expensive to fit within that framework if made permanent. The expanded CTC is one of my favorite policies, and it’s not going to work with Manchin’s demands. Back in September, David Shor and Simon Bazelon did a piece for Slow Boring in which they advocated applying a much sharper means-test to the program as a way to save it. Reaction to that idea on Twitter was very bad, but at a minimum, I think you now can understand what they were thinking.

 

But I have another idea for saving the CTC — keep it at its pre-Biden size, but make it fully refundable on a permanent basis.

 

https://www.slowboring.com/p/175-trillion-is-plenty-of-money-to?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo3NTkzNjUyLCJwb3N0X2lkIjo0NTYxMjA5NywiXyI6IlFBcEZlIiwiaWF0IjoxNjQwMDg3OTg3LCJleHAiOjE2NDAwOTE1ODcsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0xNTkxODUiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.UuvH4A9IYP38auXaDgx6D_DApGQc_tk5PB7-HC9JZ0A

[kenberg]

Way way back, when the infrastructure bill passed, I suggested we should tout that as a success and then see what more could still be done, building on this success. Selected bills, one at a time. I recommended against a 3.5 trillion everything plan. I was pretty sure it would not go through, I wasn't at all sure it should go through, and the optics would change from success at passing a big bill to utter failure from pushing for a triple size doomed bill.

 

I am not really saying "They should have listened to me", why would they do that, but I am saying they might have thought this through a bit better. People have forgotten about the infrastructure bill, they remember BBB as a failure, and the Dems are heading into 2021 with little recent success to run on other than removing some statues and changing the name of some parks.

 

This sort of pessimism is not natural for me. But. But.

 

I can hope Yglesias is right that "I also think that Manchin's stated objections to the House Build Back Better draft are perfectly consistent with the Senate passing an excellent piece of legislation.". That would be very good. This would be a very good time for me to be wrong.

As to "The back-and-forth between him and the White House suggests some deeper and more profound breakdown, but that is a problem for a psychotherapist. "

Uh oh. Psychotherapy often helps people realize that they need to get a divorce.

[Chas_P]

Best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible,

low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, winter solstice holiday,

practiced within the most joyous traditions of the religious persuasion

of your choice, but with respect for the religious persuasion of others

who choose to practice their own religion as well as those who choose

not to practice a religion at all; plus, A fiscally successful, personally

fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally

accepted calendar year 2022, but not without due respect for the

calendars of choice of the other cultures whose contributions have

helped make our society great, without regards to the race, creed,

color, religious, or sexual preferences of the wishees.

 

(disclaimer: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It

implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the

wishes for him/herself or others and no responsibility for any

unintended emotional stress these greetings may bring to those not

caught up in the holiday spirit.)

[Winstonm]

The dumb f*#k Michael Flynn has brought suit against the Jan. 6 investigation for “violating his rights”. You do have a right. retired General, your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination- so honor the subpoena and go exercise the “right” you are whining about.

[awm]

Selected bills, one at a time.

 

There would be a lot of benefits to putting smaller bills up for a vote. If they weren't trying to fold a dozen things into one gigantic bill, it'd be easier to see where congresspeople stand on particular (very popular) programs, and harder to demagogue against the bill by calling it a "grab bag of liberal priorities" (rightly or wrongly). We might be able to avoid the situation where the individual elements of the bill are all very popular while the bill overall is not. Ideally we could also avoid the sort of accounting gimmicks that Manchin complains about (where we make a bill look deficit neutral by having the spending expire well before the funding mechanism does, with the tacit assumption that spending will be extended by a later congress).

 

The problem with all of this is the Senate rules. Because of the filibuster (and the Democrats' narrow majority, and consistent obstruction by the Republicans), the only way to pass any of these things is through the "reconciliation" process, which can only be used a limited number of times per congressional session. This pretty much destroys any potential for passing multiple selected bills one at a time, not to mention that the Senate rules permit a very large number of delaying tactics on a per-bill basis (so attempting to pass multiple bills will take forever).

 

Of course, the Senate rules can be changed by a majority vote, but this would require Manchin (and Sinema) to get on board.

[johnu]

The dumb f*#k Michael Flynn has brought suit against the Jan. 6 investigation for “violating his rights”. You do have a right. retired General, your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination- so honor the subpoena and go exercise the “right” you are whining about.

 

I have to defend Michael Flynn. Russian agents only have to answer to the Kremlin, not the US of A, and QOP traitors only answer to the Confederate States of America.

[y66]

The night is dark and full of terrors, but today is the turning point in the struggle to bring daylight to the northern hemisphere.

[kenberg]

There would be a lot of benefits to putting smaller bills up for a vote. If they weren't trying to fold a dozen things into one gigantic bill, it'd be easier to see where congresspeople stand on particular (very popular) programs, and harder to demagogue against the bill by calling it a "grab bag of liberal priorities" (rightly or wrongly). We might be able to avoid the situation where the individual elements of the bill are all very popular while the bill overall is not. Ideally we could also avoid the sort of accounting gimmicks that Manchin complains about (where we make a bill look deficit neutral by having the spending expire well before the funding mechanism does, with the tacit assumption that spending will be extended by a later congress).

 

The problem with all of this is the Senate rules. Because of the filibuster (and the Democrats' narrow majority, and consistent obstruction by the Republicans), the only way to pass any of these things is through the "reconciliation" process, which can only be used a limited number of times per congressional session. This pretty much destroys any potential for passing multiple selected bills one at a time, not to mention that the Senate rules permit a very large number of delaying tactics on a per-bill basis (so attempting to pass multiple bills will take forever).

 

Of course, the Senate rules can be changed by a majority vote, but this would require Manchin (and Sinema) to get on board.

 

Thanks.

It means that we are stymied, but thanks for some clarification.

There are times I think it might still be right to try for small bills. Maybe we could hear Republicans saying something like "I oppose getting children out of poverty, poverty is good for kids, it toughens them up".

 

As an aside I have a question. I don't think I ever heard the phrase "reconciliation process" until a few years ago. If asked, I would have guessed it had something to do with marriage counseling. I actually paid attention in my Civics class in high school, but I guess "reconciliation process" is a modern invention. Are kids taught about this in school now? I am trying to think of how a teacher would present it: First we have a Senate to vote on things. Then we have the filibuster to stop senators from voting on things. Then we have the reconciliation process to allow senators to vote on things. Then we set limits on the use of the reconciliation process, we do that to stop senators from voting on things.

Maybe this structure needs some work?

[awm]

 

As an aside I have a question. I don't think I ever heard the phrase "reconciliation process" until a few years ago. If asked, I would have guessed it had something to do with marriage counseling. I actually paid attention in my Civics class in high school, but I guess "reconciliation process" is a modern invention. Are kids taught about this in school now?

 

Wikipedia article about reconciliation in the senate. It didn't exist until 1974, so you certainly didn't learn about it in high school. While I went to high school from 1989-1993 (so the process did exist then), I don't remember hearing about it until the 2000s, and then only because I follow political news pretty closely. No idea whether today's high schoolers learn about it in school.

 

Basically the idea is that Congress is supposed to pass a budget each year detailing how the federal government will raise and spend money, and this budget shouldn't be subject to filibuster (otherwise we'd never pass a budget). There are rules around the process -- all provisions must be related to either raising or spending money (so things like banning partisan gerrymandering or giving "dreamers" a path to citizenship are not permitted). Of course, this is just part of the Senate rules (as is the filibuster itself -- it's not in the Constitution) and could certainly be changed. Senate rules have been changed many times in the past (most recently by the Republicans, to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments).

[kenberg]

I have been thinking a little more about Senate problems.

Thought 1: The filibuster, at its best, keeps one party from totally running over the other. We could imagine 51 senators of the same party and viewpoint telling the other 49 "You guys might just as well go home. We don't need your votes, we don't need you, tough luck guys, but we will be passing exactly what the 51 of us decide to pass."

 

Thought 2: Ok maybe thought 1 has merit, but the other side of this is that now 49 senators can tell the other 51 (I know about Veep breaking ties, I am ignoring that for this argument) "You guys think you are actually going to pass something? Forgetaboutit"

 

Thought 3: I guess it all sort of worked with the infrastructure bill. We need roads and bridges, the Ds and enough Rs came together to get something done.

 

Thought 4: Roads and bridges are nice but if that were all we needed then Congress could be in session for a couple of weeks and then go home. We also need other things.

 

Thought 5: The real problem comes from the limitations of those we have elected. To get things done we need senators who are willing to work with other senators to do things that are important to the country. As long as "Why on Earth would I work with you" is the prevailing attitude, we are stuck.

 

I am still looking for the Thought 6 that begins "Here is how we solve this problem".

[Cyberyeti]

I have been thinking a little more about Senate problems.

Thought 1: The filibuster, at its best, keeps one party from totally running over the other. We could imagine 51 senators of the same party and viewpoint telling the other 49 "You guys might just as well go home. We don't need your votes, we don't need you, tough luck guys, but we will be passing exactly what the 51 of us decide to pass."

 

Thought 2: Ok maybe thought 1 has merit, but the other side of this is that now 49 senators can tell the other 51 (I know about Veep breaking ties, I am ignoring that for this argument) "You guys think you are actually going to pass something? Forgetaboutit"

 

Thought 3: I guess it all sort of worked with the infrastructure bill. We need roads and bridges, the Ds and enough Rs came together to get something done.

 

Thought 4: Roads and bridges are nice but if that were all we needed then Congress could be in session for a couple of weeks and then go home. We also need other things.

 

Thought 5: The real problem comes from the limitations of those we have elected. To get things done we need senators who are willing to work with other senators to do things that are important to the country. As long as "Why on Earth would I work with you" is the prevailing attitude, we are stuck.

 

I am still looking for the Thought 6 that begins "Here is how we solve this problem".

 

I'm not sure how you would phrase it, but allowing only a limited number of filibusters per session (however long you set that up as), with safeguards to prevent bringing in what would be one bill now as a lot of small bills. Basically not allowing filibustering everything, but making the smaller group pick their battles carefully.

[awm]

I have been thinking a little more about Senate problems.

Thought 1: The filibuster, at its best, keeps one party from totally running over the other. We could imagine 51 senators of the same party and viewpoint telling the other 49 "You guys might just as well go home. We don't need your votes, we don't need you, tough luck guys, but we will be passing exactly what the 51 of us decide to pass."

 

Thought 2: Ok maybe thought 1 has merit, but the other side of this is that now 49 senators can tell the other 51 (I know about Veep breaking ties, I am ignoring that for this argument) "You guys think you are actually going to pass something? Forgetaboutit"

 

Thought 3: I guess it all sort of worked with the infrastructure bill. We need roads and bridges, the Ds and enough Rs came together to get something done.

 

Thought 4: Roads and bridges are nice but if that were all we needed then Congress could be in session for a couple of weeks and then go home. We also need other things.

 

Thought 5: The real problem comes from the limitations of those we have elected. To get things done we need senators who are willing to work with other senators to do things that are important to the country. As long as "Why on Earth would I work with you" is the prevailing attitude, we are stuck.

 

I am still looking for the Thought 6 that begins "Here is how we solve this problem".

 

A few observations about this:

 

1. The Senate is (by design) quite unrepresentative, offering low-population rural states the same number of senators as high-population states. Adding the filibuster on top of this allows a senators representing a pretty small number of people to grind the country to a halt; right now the Democrats' 50 senators already represent around 40 million more people than the Republicans' 50 senators. The US government already has a pretty large number of veto points to protect the minority (two legislative houses elected at different tempos and representing people/states in different proportions, plus the presidency, plus constitutional protections and the courts), and it's not clear why we need a super-majority requirement in addition (not to mention that this requirement isn't in the constitution).

 

2. If we insist that we somehow need the filibuster (and keep in mind, Republicans will probably get rid of it as soon as there's something they want to pass and can't -- look at the games they played with Supreme Court justices over the last few years), we need to at least make it painful for the minority rather than an automatic matter of course. The simplest solution is to require 41 senators to block something (rather than requiring 60 to advance it); this would mean that the minority needs to actually keep 41 senators on the floor at all times to maintain the blockade (which might restrict it to the really important stuff).

 

3. We really need to pass voting rights reforms. There will never be a bipartisan agreement on this; Republicans are passing voting restrictions (and even scarier, bills allowing gerrymandered state legislatures to override the will of the people in the state) on party line votes at the state level. If we don't set out some rules at the federal level, we will quite likely lose our republic entirely. A lot of the current situation where there's no incentive to compromise comes from the prevalence of "one-party" districts and states (where a challenge from within one's own party is the only way to lose the seat) and anything that makes these seats more competitive will help encourage moderation.

[kenberg]

A few observations about this:

 

1. The Senate is (by design) quite unrepresentative, offering low-population rural states the same number of senators as high-population states. Adding the filibuster on top of this allows a senators representing a pretty small number of people to grind the country to a halt; right now the Democrats' 50 senators already represent around 40 million more people than the Republicans' 50 senators. The US government already has a pretty large number of veto points to protect the minority (two legislative houses elected at different tempos and representing people/states in different proportions, plus the presidency, plus constitutional protections and the courts), and it's not clear why we need a super-majority requirement in addition (not to mention that this requirement isn't in the constitution).

 

2. If we insist that we somehow need the filibuster (and keep in mind, Republicans will probably get rid of it as soon as there's something they want to pass and can't -- look at the games they played with Supreme Court justices over the last few years), we need to at least make it painful for the minority rather than an automatic matter of course. The simplest solution is to require 41 senators to block something (rather than requiring 60 to advance it); this would mean that the minority needs to actually keep 41 senators on the floor at all times to maintain the blockade (which might restrict it to the really important stuff).

 

3. We really need to pass voting rights reforms. There will never be a bipartisan agreement on this; Republicans are passing voting restrictions (and even scarier, bills allowing gerrymandered state legislatures to override the will of the people in the state) on party line votes at the state level. If we don't set out some rules at the federal level, we will quite likely lose our republic entirely. A lot of the current situation where there's no incentive to compromise comes from the prevalence of "one-party" districts and states (where a challenge from within one's own party is the only way to lose the seat) and anything that makes these seats more competitive will help encourage moderation.

 

I very much like the idea of requiring 41 filibustering senators on the floor to maintain the filibuster. Your general assessment is very pessimistic but, I am sorry to say, also pretty realistic. We are in desperate need of having people in leadership positions who think a well-functioning democracy is more important than getting their own way on everything. When push comes to shove, we need good people. Good structure yes, but bad people can screw up anything.

[pilowsky]

The Democracy in the United States - and Australia - operates at a macro level in the same way as a large dysfunctional family.

Most of the time things grumble along tolerably.

Some people go out and earn money.

People contribute to cleaning the home and taking out the garbage to the extent they are able.

Sometimes one member of the family decides they need to make a major purchase - a car perhaps.

They consult one of the other people - a decision gets made.

The others get no say.

After a while, one of the people decides that they want to get a job as a stand-up comedian, or get pregnant or take a few years to walk from Kensington to Katoomba.

Or become a Bridge grandmaster.

And they want major support from the other people for their personal activity.

Its moments like these that test the fabric of a society.

Democracy is a metal that is hardened in the furnace of difficult decisions. Sometimes it melts.

Right now it looks like a snowman in the Sahara.

[akwoo]

I very much like the idea of requiring 41 filibustering senators on the floor to maintain the filibuster. Your general assessment is very pessimistic but, I am sorry to say, also pretty realistic. We are in desperate need of having people in leadership positions who think a well-functioning democracy is more important than getting their own way on everything. When push comes to shove, we need good people. Good structure yes, but bad people can screw up anything.

 

I think we are desperately in need of voters who prioritize having a functioning democracy over getting their way on everything.

 

Pick an important issue X. Take a poll - if a clear majority of the country disagrees with you on X, do you think they should have their way? I'm pretty sure you'd get 70-80% saying 'No', noting of course that some of the people saying 'No' have one opinion on X and others have the contrary opinion.

 

Sadly, we can't replace the voters.

[pilowsky]

I think we are desperately in need of voters who prioritize having a functioning democracy over getting their way on everything.

 

Pick an important issue X. Take a poll - if a clear majority of the country disagrees with you on X, do you think they should have their way? I'm pretty sure you'd get 70-80% saying 'No', noting of course that some of the people saying 'No' have one opinion on X and others have the contrary opinion.

 

Sadly, we can't replace the voters.

 

What people need to maintain a healthy and wise society where the weak are cared for takes more than a popularity contest.

Otherwise Spiderman would rule America.

To illustrate what a poor method polling is for governing take a look at any of the Bridge polls conducted elsewhere on this forum.

Anyone that thinks that my opinion about when to bid 2NT is as good as anyone else's may need to rethink polling as a sensible method of governance.

 

Polling is not the same as democracy.

Government cannot function without expertise.

 

Even at the height of the cold war, engineers on both sides of the Berlin wall collaborated to make sure the ***** flowed in the right direction.

Texas being a notable exception where they have a separate power grid and when it fails the wealthy flee to Mexico where all the cool people live.

[barmar]

The answer to #6 is to vote out the corrupt Senators and replace them with people who are willing to get things done, making compromises when necessary.

 

Which is why GOP state legislatures are actively increasing voting restrictions, and GOP Senators are blocking voting reform that would put a stop to this.

[Winstonm]

It's impossible at this point to describe the hypocrisy of the GOP. Criminal laws define "corrupt" as an action or inaction that is for the benefit of oneself or of another. An Oklahoma legislator has just introduced a bill that would allow those who have been fired for refusing a Covid-19 vaccination to receive unemployment benefits.

 

Keep in mind that this is the same political party who were complaining about unemployment benefits during the pandemic because they claimed the Burger King employees were getting rich sitting home instead of flipping fries for fat fuc#s in their Mercedes.

[y66]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/opinion/capitol-riot.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuonUktbfqYhkSVUbBybSRdkhrxqAwvPG2L0ggXu7NimSVXBC0-ERScCmynv6WJBCNZE1zijJA5hIKqMuT_h_ieICbhA1RVP355fYyJ9Afnhv-cfjUjNumsyTDO81qzWwMGPnd6033rCwvjOqYmXhW6Tc2XwkNVwl9cMjLQf2rCROkqTVEed12c183eMjA_15QDQHbCqLtpr4Gkk0eYXGPlyHtF5AC6wOUirTnNWc97sDbA1YbFrAR3906mw2g8hOR-PdMBqz2lY3zQYbwtgLMw&smid=url-share

 

In December 1972, the critic Pauline Kael famously admitted that she’d been living in a political bubble. “I only know one person who voted for Nixon,” she said. “Where they are, I don’t know. They’re outside my ken.” A pithier version of her quote (“I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”) has been used to exemplify liberal insularity ever since, both by conservative pundits and by the kind of centrist journalists who have spent the past several years buzzing in the ears of heartland diner patrons, looking for clues about Donald Trump’s rise.

 

The most important fact about the Trump era, though, can be gleaned simply by examining his vote tallies and approval ratings: At no point in his political career — not a single day — has Mr. Trump enjoyed the support of the majority of the country he governed for four years. And whatever else Jan. 6 might have been, it should be understood first and foremost as an expression of disbelief in — or at least a rejection of — that reality. Rather than accepting, in defeat, that much more of their country lay outside their ken than they’d known, his supporters proclaimed themselves victors and threw a deadly and historic tantrum.

 

The riot was an attack on our institutions, and of course, inflammatory conservative rhetoric and social media bear some of the blame. But our institutions also helped produce that violent outburst by building a sense of entitlement to power within America’s conservative minority.

 

The structural advantages that conservatives enjoy in our electoral system are well known. Twice already this young century, the Republican Party has won the Electoral College and thus the presidency while losing the popular vote. Republicans in the Senate haven’t represented a majority of Americans since the 1990s, yet they’ve controlled the chamber for roughly half of the past 20 years. In 2012 the party kept control of the House even though Democrats won more votes.

 

And as is now painfully clear to Democratic voters, their party faces significant barriers to success in Washington even when it manages to secure full control of government: The supermajority requirement imposed by the Senate filibuster can stall even wildly popular legislation, and Republicans have stacked the judiciary so successfully that the Supreme Court seems poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, an outcome that around 60 percent of the American people oppose, according to several recent polls. Obviously, none of the structural features of our federal system were designed with contemporary politics and the Republican Party in mind. But they are clearly giving a set of Americans who have taken strongly to conservative ideology — rural voters in sparsely populated states in the middle of the country — more power than the rest of the electorate.

 

With these structural advantages in place, it’s not especially difficult to see how the right came to view dramatic political losses, when they do occur, as suspect. If the basic mechanics of the federal system were as fair and balanced as we’re taught they are, the extent and duration of conservative power would reflect the legitimate preferences of most Americans. Democratic victories, by contrast, now seem to the right like underhanded usurpations of the will of the majority — in President Biden’s case, by fraud and foreign voters, and in Barack Obama’s, by a candidate who was himself a foreign imposition on the true American people.

 

But the federal system is neither fair nor balanced. Rather than democratic give and take between two parties that share the burden of winning over the other side, we have one favored party and another whose effortful victories against ever-lengthening odds are conspiratorially framed as the skulduggery of schemers who can win only through fraud and covert plans to import a new electorate. It doesn’t help that Republican advantages partly insulate the party from public reproach; demagogy is more likely to spread among politicians if there are few electoral consequences. This is a recipe for political violence. Jan. 6 wasn’t the first or the deadliest attack to stem from the idea that Democrats are working to force their will on a nonexistent conservative political and cultural majority. We have no reason to expect it will be the last.

 

And while much of the language Republican politicians and commentators use to incite their base seems outwardly extreme, it’s important to remember that what was done on Jan. 6 was done in the name of the Constitution, as most Republican voters now understand it — an eternal compact that keeps power in their rightful hands. Tellingly, during his Jan. 6 rally, Mr. Trump cannily deployed some of the language Democrats have used to decry voting restrictions and foreign interference. “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy,” he said. “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for the integrity of our elections.”

 

The mainstream press has also had a hand in inflating the right’s sense of itself. Habits like the misrepresentation of Republican voters and operatives as swing voters plucked off the street and the constant, reductive blather about political homogeneity on the coasts — despite the fact that there were more Trump voters in New York City in 2016 and 2020 than there were in both Dakotas combined — create distorted impressions of our political landscape. The tendency of journalists to measure the wisdom of policies and rhetoric based on their distance from the preferences of conservative voters only reinforces the idea that it’s fair for politicians, activists and voters on the left to take the reddest parts of the country into account without the right taking a reciprocal interest in what most Americans want.

 

That premise still dominates and constrains strategic thinking within the Democratic Party. A year after the Capitol attack and all the rent garments and tears about the right’s radicalism and the democratic process, the party has failed to deliver promised political reforms, thanks to opposition from pivotal members of its own Senate caucus — Democrats who argue that significantly changing our system would alienate Republicans.

 

Given demographic trends, power in Washington will likely continue accruing to Republicans even if the right doesn’t undertake further efforts to subvert our elections. And to fix the structural biases at work, Democrats would have to either attempt the impossible task of securing broad, bipartisan support for major new amendments to the Constitution — which, it should be said, essentially bars changes to the Senate’s basic design — or pass a set of system-rebalancing workarounds, such as admitting new states ⁠like the District of Columbia. It should never be forgotten that fully enfranchised voters from around the country gathered to stage a riot over their supposedly threatened political rights last January in a city of 700,000 people who don’t have a full vote in Congress.

 

Jan. 6 demonstrated that the choice the country now faces isn’t one between disruptive changes to our political system and a peaceable status quo. To believe otherwise is to indulge the other big lie that drew violence to the Capitol in the first place. The notion that the 18th-century American constitutional order is suited to governance in the 21st is as preposterous and dangerous as anything Mr. Trump has ever uttered. It was the supposedly stabilizing features of our vaunted system that made him president to begin with and incubated the extremism that turned his departure into a crisis.

[johnu]

It's impossible at this point to describe the hypocrisy of the GOP.

It is possible to describe all the hypocrisy of the QOP, but it would take all the computing power in the world to keep up with all the lies, half-truths, and deception that is generated by the QOP hypocrisy machine. So while possible, this won't be probable until the next generation of quantum computers are widely available.

[y66]

One of the very first things McConnell himself did in 2017 was to create a “narrow exception” to the filibuster that allowed Republicans to confirm a Supreme Court Justice with a simple majority vote.

"There is no such thing as a narrow exception,” McConnell says of Dem talk to create a filibuster carveout for voting and elections legislation. “This is genuine radicalism.”

Bring it.

[y66]

Adam McKay’s #DontLookUp starring Jennifer Lawrence and Leonardo DiCaprio has recorded the biggest week of views in Netflix history with more than 152 million hours streamed.

President Janie Orlean (Meryl Streep): "So, how certain is this?"

Dr. Mindy: "There's 100 percent certainty of impact."

President: "Please, don't say 100 percent."

Aide: "Can we just call it a 'potentially significant event'?"

Kate Dibiasky (Jennifer Lawrence): "But it isn't 'potentially' going to happen."

Dr. Mindy: "99.78%, to be exact."

Chief of Staff: "Oh, great. Okay, so it's not 100%."

[kenberg]

A couple of thoughts.

Very possibly Rs will have a Senate majority next year. Assuming that they have more than 50 and less than 60 seats, this will bring an end to the filibuster.

 

As to the Nwanevu quote:

"The notion that the 18th-century American constitutional order is suited to governance in the 21st is as preposterous and dangerous as anything Mr. Trump has ever uttered."

Dems might want to think a bit about whether they really want to run with the idea that the American Constitution is no longer suited for governance. This position would get very enthusiastic yeses from a very small number of people.

 

Solutions are tough.

[Winstonm]

A couple of thoughts.

Very possibly Rs will have a Senate majority next year. Assuming that they have more than 50 and less than 60 seats, this will bring an end to the filibuster.

 

As to the Nwanevu quote:

"The notion that the 18th-century American constitutional order is suited to governance in the 21st is as preposterous and dangerous as anything Mr. Trump has ever uttered."

Dems might want to think a bit about whether they really want to run with the idea that the American Constitution is no longer suited for governance. This position would get very enthusiastic yeses from a very small number of people.

 

Solutions are tough.

Yes, self-governance by zoo monkeys is difficult if not downright impossible.

 

*we may have better luck using aversion therapy with Beethoven's Ninth playing in the background.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Winstonm