Yes. India was always an experiment in democracy, vulnerable to internal conflicts and self contradictions. Instead of preserving the ideals which drove its overthrow of British tyranny and being an exemplary contrast to its enemies, India has become more like them - a violently racist right wing religious extremist state with an author…
Yes. India was always an experiment in democracy, vulnerable to internal conflicts and self contradictions. Instead of preserving the ideals which drove its overthrow of British tyranny and being an exemplary contrast to its enemies, India has become more like them - a violently racist right wing religious extremist state with an authoritarian executive, a corrupt judiciary, and a legislature dominated by the craven, cowardly, and complicit. With a lot of flag waving to hide a myriad of sins. Oh, wait.
Here at home, our flag has been appropriated by those violently opposed to the virtues it is meant to symbolize. The majority of Americans oppose today's Republican party agenda, but disproportionate power distribution - perpetrated by the constitutional errors of two senators from each state no matter its population and of the electoral college, as well as later injustices such as the filibuster, gerrymandering, and the Leonard Leo Federalist Society corruption of the Supreme Court - make the struggle almost impossibly difficult for democratic minded citizens to prevail.
During my time in India I could never reconcile the fact that Gandhi is on all the paper currency but what they really worship is their military.
The Federalist Society has corrupted most of the federal judiciary. McConnell used Trump to get almost 300 young ideologues onto the bench, regardless of whether they were qualified or not. That is a wound that will take at least a generation to heal.
Sorry, but as a lawyer practicing for more than 50 years (albeit mostly in state, not federal courts), I reject your contention that most of the federal judiciary is corrupt. That that is not so is shown by the number of decisions against Trump and his co-conspirators issued by judges he appointed. The federal courts are highly imperfect, but they are not the cesspool you imply.
Thank you, Jon, for addressing the tendency toward hysteria that sometimes breaks out here because people lack the context in which to place the limited set of facts they are exposed to. I do wish people would read more widely and not depend so much on a single source. It is unfair to Heather to expect her to provide the corrective back story on everything that pops into people's minds.
The fact of right wing ideologue appointees to the Federal Bench didn't just pop into people's minds. Nor is our concern about the impact hysteria.
Instead of looking your nose down or turning it up at fellow commenters, you might provide some context for your rosy view.
I'll do your homework for you. Republicans brought in big gun DC lawyers and expert witness in their attempt to stop the count and when that failed to overturn Maine's first Ranked Choice Voting election. Their case was so egregiously flawed (the Univ. Of Maryland, College Park prof EW had never done any research on RCV and actually perjured himself in asserting otherwise, his argument was that elderly and minority voters were too stupid to understand RCV and so it violated our civil rights) that Judge Lance Walker called their argument conclusory, and invited them back when they'd learned something about Maine voters and about RCV. Walker was fast tracked by Trump et al and this was not his only fair decision.
lin•, perhaps you could respond to Jon Margolis's comment? He spoke from his decades-long experience as a lawyer. You spoke of one particular case in which you have an interest -- and you led by insulting Annie D. Stratton for no reason. The odd thing is that your anecdote about Judge Walker seems to support the proposition that the federal bench is not corrupt. (Last I looked, no one was defending the GOP's lawyers.)
Please see my reply to JM below. As MisTBlu wrote we should be concerned about the Federalist appointees on the bench. Concern is neither ignorance nor hysteria. And Yes, I did AD's homework for her by giving an actual example of a Federalist appointee who seems not to be a stinker. Black swans and all that.
My name is Annie, lin. By all means feel free to use it. I don't rate initials yet. And please don't make assumptions about how I think. You haven't been here long enough, and you don't pay enough attention to what people are actually saying.
Sounds like you didn't have your morning coffee or tea. Ad hominem attacks are not in keeping with the comment section in Dr. Richardson's Letter to America. I found this because I read widely and was aware of her expertise in American history. I assume most people who subscribe to this Substack "read widely" and don't base their comments on a "limited set of facts."
For the most part you'd be right. But quite a few don't. I addressed my post to that issue alone, and the misconceptions that sometimes arise from it. BTW, coffee and the lack or surplus of it is a running joke here that you will recognize when you've been around a bit longer. We like to kid ourselves about it. It's hard work to take oneself too seriously.
"Corruption" in the courts is not an across-the-board miasma. Key figures within the court are "corrupt" in the sense of extremist positions on specific issues. It's a bit like your sister's uncle: nice guy, polite, hard worker, kind to animals, but do NOT get him started on Space Aliens.
In addition, 90% (99%?) of all legal issues are basically paper-pushing. Much of it is routine: wills, trusts, marriages. In cases that need to be adjudicated, guilt/fault is often obvious, people plead "no contest," pay the fine, do the time, and it's done. Next.
The problem arises when a key case makes its way through the court, or is "revisited." E.g. Roe v Wade.
I think it's fair to say that there are at least four, perhaps five truly (and deeply) "corrupt" justices serving on the Supreme Court, and that has shaken the entire structure of the court system. What they have done is unconscionable, and has not been in the service of justice or society, and that has spread to a lack of confidence in the "courts" as a whole, because it affects the courts as a whole.
There's another thing I haven't seen discussed. (Doesn't mean it hasn't, but I have not seen it.) That is timing.
You do NOT approach a grieving mother who has just lost a child with your hands in your pockets, and say, "You know you really are a lousy housekeeper. Look at this dump!"
This is exactly what the SC has done. Let's hold our noses and toy with the argument that maybe their insane RvW ruling has some kind of merit. Of ALL the times to bring this up, the immediate aftermath of an attempted coup, after a political packing of the court under a filibuster conspiracy, is ... well, in the kindest possible light, it demonstrates a contemptible lack of sound judgement. But it really looks more like a parallel thrust of the coup, a conspiracy with the coup, and an additional attack on the integrity of the country.
Most of the folks who comprise the federal judiciary are not corrupt. The point is that the objectivity and impartiality of the judiciary has been corrupted by partisanship. How much shit do you have to put in the soup before it’s ruined?
I should have been more measured. It's not that the federal judiciary is corrupt it's that the Federalist Society and McConnell have attempted to corrupt it. When you appoint dozens of young, highly ideological and unqualified attorneys to lifetime positions you have diminished it's effectiveness. That a couple of Trump's appointees did the right thing in highly publicized cases is a good thing. But they are going to be on the court for decades and most of their decisions will not be highly publicized. My only hope is that a lot of them will find that they don't like the work and will resign or, sad to say, that their lack of experience will trip them up and they'll be forced to resign. The fact that some of them had never even been inside a courtroom (except for moot court) shows the lengths to which Mitch and Leo, with the unwitting help of Donald, went to to get their dream court.
I think you were quite clear from the start. And that you were misread. And then ... off to the races. I appreciate your further explication as it sometimes helps to spell things out, even when not exactly necessary.
MsTBlu just reported the facts on the number of Leo/McConnell/Trump Federal bench appointees, many of whose primary qualification is allegiance to Republican racist right wing religious extremist ideology. And some even appointed on bi partisan Senate votes.
You might put that in a greater context, which you didn't. But the stench is not lessened by a few high profile cases decided against Trump.
I’m curious Fern, about what makes a “sneer” in your world view. As I sort of thought that the suggestion that another posters words were hysterical and ignorant of facts a bit sneerish? “Thank you, Jon, for addressing the tendency toward hysteria that sometimes breaks out here because people lack the context in which to place the limited set of facts they are exposed to. I do wish people would read more widely and not depend so much on a single source.” I’m not the thought police nor a judge, so in the scheme of things it’s not that important but If pot is calling the kettle black I think it’s worth shining a light on
As worried as many of us are, having followed the spate of decisions about voting irregularities, your point is well taken. But today’s decision about keeping the affidavit sealed will tell a lot about the court. To find against the DOJ would surely be the end of US, given the secrets revealed.
Yes, and Kevin McCarthy is feeding the fire of violence now, with absolutely no thought to what his words are inflaming. The blood is on both their hands. We had January 6, and now the barrage of horrible threats and evil acts have begun. Trump would never ask any of his mindless followers to back down, but both of these titled leaders could do so. I am so filled with anger and fear right now. Every time we observe actions that give us hope that trump’s era is coming to an end, there is more bitter news. I’m needing all of you and Heather to keep hope alive.
Federalist Society honcho Leonard Leo has his summer headquarters here at 46 SouthShore Road, NorthEast Harbor, Mount Desert, Maine 04662
We have been having regular peaceful pop up protests. But Leo brought undue pressure on a sympathetic local cop to arrest a young man - for shouting 'FU gaspole' from a moving car on Main Street. Not the sort of thing the disorderly conduct statute seems to have been intended for or used for previously. That amped up the protests. Lots of thumbs up from the community and tourists. Though it turns out even many savvy and informed people don't know who Leo is.
"The sellers were the heirs of chemical giant W.R. Grace chairman and CEO J. Peter Grace, who was the head of the U.S. branch of the Knights of Malta, a 971-year-old conservative Roman Catholic order to which Leo also belongs. Two months before the closing – which occurred at the height of the Senate debate over the Kavanaugh nomination – the Leos also paid off the mortgage on their primary home in McLean, Virginia.
Leo deals in dark money funneled through shell companies. Dodgy donors to dubious enterprises - including to Susan Collins and to some guy who rented buses for Jan 6 protestors.
Catholic funding? Who knows.
Knights of Malta and Opus Dei connections? Verified.
Wow! Excellent piece by Salon! Jacobus is right in her last statement about Dems are fearful of Repubs. We have to call them out loudly when they lie and foment fear!
Let us not forget about two prominent members of The Federalist Society: Wray and Kavanaugh, at one time college chums. Then, remember how Kavanaugh was NOT fully vetted by the FBI.
If I recall, the FBI did not fully vet Kavanaugh because the Trump White House tied their hands by severely limiting the scope of investigation and the time frame.
"Wray confirmed that background investigations are handled differently from other FBI probes and that the scope of inquiries into judicial nominees is dictated by the White House."
If my recall is correct, there now are 13 federal district courts. There should be 13 Supreme Court Justices. Actually, I believe the Supreme Court should have 15 justices. That each justice can serve no more than 40 years. That every 8 years they come under judicial review by a select panel.
Give the “majority of Americans oppos[ing] today's Republican party agenda” the tools they need. Eliminate the primary system and institute ranked choice voting.
If ranked choice voting had been in place in Maine, it might have spared the state 8 years of misery under a despicable governor who won twice with about 36% of the vote. The independent challenger sucked away votes.
Ranked choice voting encourages us to vote for the person we truly believe represents our views and goals. But it also means that if that person is not the winner (Independent, Green or Libertarian) our second choice is counted in the final tally.
So you could have voted for Ralph Nader to show your support and if you had selected Al Gore as your second, he could have won the election.
Not exactly BA. In a tragic irony, RCV - which was instituted to correct the Elliot Cutler crew elects Paul LePage effect - cannot be used in the gubernatorial race because of a sentence in the state constitution.
RCV has worked in Maine for one Federal election. But a caveat. It totally depends on the third party/independent candidate crowd putting a major party candidate as their second ranked choice - no guarantees there.
Maine instituted RCV through a Voters Initiative - after the 'person not party crowd' gave Trump before Trump TeaParty Paul LePage the governorship TWICE by voting for, now indicted and self confessed child pornographer, self funded candidate Elliot Cutler. Ironically, because of a sentence in the state constitution, RCV cannot be used in the gubernatorial election.
Ah, but those "independents" are "purer" than the rest of us (no, they're not, they're politically illiterate morons who are the best proof that Mencken was right 98 years ago when he said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American.")
Maine has an Independent Senator who caucauses with the Democrats, and was an Independent Governor before that.
Recently anyway, nobody ever lost an election by not listening to a political pundit. The side of the barn was missed so badly in 2016 that few would even venture a guess in 2020. Things really have not improved since then, beyond those willing to state the obvious and call it a prediction. How did America's pundit class get, and remain, so out of touch?
I track and often respond to Environmental Letters to the Editor and try and correct misinformation and take the opportunity to provide correct information.
I am struck by the high numbers of collective Right Wing Views who publish opinions either articles, letters and comments thereto obviously developed from a single source.
The spread of misinformation is organized by specific categories for example wind turbine energy and solar energy each with different players reflecting various but specific Far Right Wing propaganda.
So many of the “independents,” keep the Trump Idiocy afloat by adhering to the moronic anti-Science spectrum developed by the Extreme Right.
I'll go out on a limb and say that Sarah isn't coming back. At least not in AK. She burned too many bridges. Maybe now that the Republicans in AZ have forgotten John McCain she might have some support, but Kari Lake already has her market share covered. And then some.
The top 4 are supposed to be on the ballot. One of the top four withdrew from the race. the fifth person was not included then in the top four. Went to a judge who denied the fifth person a place in the top four.
Not yet. My feeling is that it works in small-population states like Maine and Alaska but I'm not certain how it would work in a large-population state like California with federal, state and local candidates plus the usual 10-15 initiatives plus all the judges and school boards etc etc etc
"If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men." - John Adams
Washington, Adams, Hamilton,Monroe, Jefferson, Laurens, Madison, Franklin, et al, would be absolutely stunned at the number of members of Congress who currently flaunt the Constitution with impunity. How could so many with so little respect for the rule of law be elected to office at the same time? How could a populous be so collectively gullible at the same time?
“It’s a democracy, madam, if you can keep it” - Franklin
More likely flout than flaunt, but yes, I think the founders would be appalled. As for the pervasiveness of the corruption we witness today, there is always some background level of that, but it appears to me that Republicans turned decidedly anti-democratic and contemptuous of rule of law with Reagan, by whom the press and the public seemed utterly snookered, and the "GOP" has been hacking away at governmental integrity ever since; growing ever bolder, the more corruption has be legalized and normalized. Have they finally overplayed their hand?
And yes, they have overplayed. The majority of this nation wants democracy and fair elections that are easy to vote in. While I think we will be playing "whackamole" with the liars and deniers forever. But ultimately we will see some big names in the "big house".
The reaction on the right will be violent and bloody. But we shouldn't be intimidated. Let them rant while we calmly enforce the law.
It's more serious than playing 'whackamole.' How do we 'calmly enforce the law' when the 'reaction on the right will be violent and bloody'? When they realize that the DOJ is approaching its 'end game,' and their keeping their king out of check much longer will be impossible, they will just kick over the table and knock the chessboard to the floor. They tried that on January 6 and will try it again. If merely executing a legally obtained search warrant has resulted in physical threats to a judge and at least one attack on an FBI offfice, imagine what the result of a grand jury indictment would be. No, it's not just 'whackamole.' There is no question in my mind that the United States government is totally capable of dealing with such violations of the law and attacks on the Constitution, but doing so without diminishing our freedoms, at least temporarily, will be difficult.
I think it is "whackamole" in the sense that crime and corruption never goes entirely away, a bit like infectious illnesses never entirely go away, but now we are dealing with an "epidemic" in terms of scale.
Difficult, for sure. I did not mean to minimize the situation. Our authorities may need to fight fire with fire. There may be some violent standoffs. When I say calmy, I mean firmly and consistently under the rule of law. If that means calling on our big guns to put down violent seditionists...so be it.
I, unfortunately agree with you. The majority of people who stand for democracy may need to give up a few freedoms in order to deal with homegrown terrorists and an internet mouthpiece that spews propaganda 24/7 and gives them a place to organize. We have to deal with the modern era of this kind of cyber-warfare against our people and democracy, by our own people willing to work for the highest bidders. I am afraid there must be restrictions on anyone allowed in high positions if they are against All The People or aid and abet insurrections, treason and espionage right in front of our damned faces. And we pay for their salaries and bennies...still. The presidential pardon and the fifth amendment have nearly destroyed our ability to function judiciously with blatant criminals. Out with them, I say! Out damned spots—the pardon, the fifth and the thugs! Sounds like potential name/s of a book or a band.
This is not the first time the US has had to deal with rebellion. Washington sent troops to subdue anti-tax rebels. They backed down. I have complete faith in our law enforcement system and personnel to take out and/or take control of any fascists who take up arms against us and the US. Their commanders will calmly give the orders as directed by a calm and careful President.
One can dream, but they have been busy on all fronts. It’s their last shot at the power “conservatives” have dreamed of for decades, and their “get out of jail free card”
Founders would be appalled, tho not surprised, I don't believe. What's your definition of 'overplaying' ??? What are you thinking happens in that case?
On the one hand I worry that Republicans may succeed in a procedural coup. On the other, their narrative has become so shamelessly wacko, enough prodding might cause it to collapse.
Rupert for starters, way before social media. The minister of propaganda. Stop with the “how can a populous be so collectively gullible at the same time.” Deliberate ignorance is way worse than stupidity…
I think the issue is not for the most part lack of cognitive ability, and I know some quite clever MAGA believers. I think we are all vulnerable to some measure of narcissistic cult dynamics, and certainly our team vs theirs, which schools very much encourage. The killer mental malware is encouragement and often coercion to demonize outsiders and reject any input from outside the cult as heresy. I think it can resemble psychosis.
I agree and note that we are stunned that some of them we slaveholders. Yet the Revolution could easily have produced a new Boss, same as the old Boss, and didn't. Lucky for us the their project was pretty firm foundation for operating and even expanding shared human empowerment, so long as the preponderance of the population approached it in good faith. But in any configuration of give and take there is a temptation to cheat. We reinforce good faith by shunning the cheaters, especially in sports, but the urge is so much more compelling in political contests, and sometimes the results are horrifying. We even dress up our ugliest narcissistic bullying in regal robes, and claim that God made us do it.
One of Lincoln's most repeated thoughts was "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The issue of the era was literal slavery, but insofar as it can be considered the core of a democracy, I think it still works when you change out "master" for "bully" or another name for coercive subjugation. It took us longer to recognize systemic bullying in societal responses to gender. Not surprisingly the origins of the women's suffrage movement and abolition were allied. The struggle to universalize the rights of life, liberty and responsible pursuit of happiness goes on. Bullying and justice are polar opposites.
We were somehow caught snoozing when Republicans opened their medicine show for the teachings of Milton Friedman,, who claimed as an axiom "The only corporate social responsibility a company has is to maximize its profits." and a "Republican" Supreme Court that grants the rights of persons to corporations. What kind of citizen is that?
Republicans are wont to claim the authority of the Bible, yet Timothy says the the love of money is the root of all evil. "Love" in this context I take to mean, that which you value over all else, that for which you sacrifice other things, and in my view, money is a species of power. What does such "love" displace? Follow the money.
To what degree has the legitimatized love of money warped and displaced the national aspiration of liberty and justice for all; actually all.
"And it is not always linked to intelligence because it needn’t be."
My mother told me that. I think wisdom has something to do with emotional and intellectual maturity, and I think that has more to do with integrity than talent, and is only loosely connect to age (contrast Trump with Greta Thunberg). And I think intelligence is allied but not identical with powers of observation, the ability to recognize what is there and what is most significant. That is where the young often show up adults who are set in their ways. It is the kid who shouts without reservation that "the Emperor is naked".
Do you remember the Golden Calf of the Old Testament? At 8, I knew what it meant. Of course it helped that my mother was fond of saying from time to time “The love of money is the root of all evil.” She was a ferocious Virginian and knew noblesse oblige.
Almost impossible for democratically-inclined citizens to prevail? And yet Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress, they have a good chance to increase the majority in the Senate, and the chances of holding on to the House are improving with every passing day.
Jon, While I share your understanding at the federal level, I, nonetheless, believe we should operate as though we were trailing by 10 points. As for defending democracy at the state and local levels, I understand that groups like The States Project are mobilizing in unprecedented ways, well aware that Republicans ruthlessly are organizing to fill state and local positions with their own people—people who don’t believe in free and fair elections.
As a final point, I would note that Democracy Docket founder Marc Elias has discussed a Republican election subversion plan he expects will be enacted as early as this fall. Admittedly, Elias is not suggesting that Republican election officials are laying the groundwork blatantly to declare their candidates the winner whether or not the candidate wins enough votes. He views the Republican election subversion plan as more sophisticated than that. Rather, Elias anticipates that Republicans will use “false allegations of fraud as a pretext to remove ballots from the vote totals and then certify those incomplete results.”
Though I don’t doubt that when litigation ensues Elias and his team will mount arguments whose conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence, I am not as confident that our courts will stand for the beacons of democracy that we need them to be.
Jon, Your reply does not account for a critical fact: GOP controlled state legislatures currently are changing state election rules to change who can be in charge, how votes are counted, and how they’re certified. Here, I would note, that while we can contend with voter suppression measures by turbo-charging turnout, no amount of organizing is going to get us around voter nullification provisions.
My point is not to give up, but to recognize, absent any federal voter protection safeguards barring a severely gutted 1965 Voting Rights Act, that we will have to summon a renewed definition of ourselves as citizens—something closer to the nation of active stakeholders that leaders like Thomas Jefferson had in mind.
I think we really need to stop promoting the right wing lie that the Democrats control Congress. The slim margin in the House was made acutely clear with H.R. 1808, the assault weapon ban. which passed 217-213. Five Democrats voted no. If it wasn't for the yes votes of two Republicans the bill would have failed because the vote would have been tied at 215-215. The Senate is 50:50 so the only thing they have any control over is the committees. That's not nothing but it doesn't amount to "control of Congress."
@MisTBlu, Though your reply was not addressed to me, I would note, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, that the messaging should focus on the increasingly impressive list of Democratic accomplishments despite the narrow margin in the House and the 50-50 Senate. I understand, starting next week, that the President, the Vice President and Cabinet members plan to hit the campaign trail both to amplify the Party’s achievements and to underscore the outstanding transformative legislation that will become law if the Dems hold the House and pick up 2 Senate seats.
Well, if Democrats don't control Congress no one does. Back early in the GWB administration the president's main policy plank was to get rid of, or hollow out, Social Security. Didn't happen, although Republicans had majorities in both houses, and the White House, too. Still, it would have been wrong in almost everyone's eyes to say that they did not control Congress.
To me, complete control of Congress means having a super majority in the Senate, something no party has had since the 95th session (1977-1979).
Using GWB's attempts to radically change Social Security isn't very applicable as there was never a bill on which Congress had to take a vote. Even the wingiest Republican understands that they can bad talk entitlements*; they can talk up the benefits of privatization; they can even pull a Rick Scott and propose eliminating it completely; but they can do that knowing that there will never be an actual bill to which they'd be required to say Aye.
*the use of the term "entitlements" instead of "benefits" is all part of the decades long effort to undermine Social Security and, since 1965, Medicare.
lin, While I don’t dispute any of your points regarding either India or the States, from my perspective here in the States, we stay in the fight despite seemingly impossible odds and despite perhaps never knowing, before making significant progress, whether or how our individual efforts mattered.
I think that a large part of what keeps authoritarianism popular is the uncertainty of faith part of it, and by "faith" I'm not talking about God or the Force, or whatever taking one's side. It the matter of putting discipline and effort into something that ultimately depends on the kindred efforts of like-minded people whose behavior you cannot control. It's doing something because you think it's the just thing to do with no assurance of reward at the end of it. It's contributing to a wave that may or may not make a difference.
Authoritarians, by contrast, get things done as a matter of edict. Do or else. Ruling by rewards and fear, they tend to get what they ask for; or at least they don't tolerate resistance. Build the Wall, devastate the families of outsiders, win no matter what, no holds barred. So long as you can bear to identify with that agenda, it can make you feel invulnerable. Unless you think about it.
@ J L Graham, First my apologies for this exceedingly delayed reply, which I hope, after a number of days, you still find meaningful. To start, I believe a host of factors have to be taken into account when those to whom we could lose our democracy believe they are fighting for their freedoms. Broadly speaking, no democracy can survive with a working/middle class so aggrieved that it is willing to accept any authoritarian option seeming to offer, in their view, a modicum of social and economic equity. I count among said persons those who have been the victims of modernity’s unevenly distributed opportunity and prosperity, whether due to technological changes that increasingly have rewarded higher educated workers over the less skilled, rising immigration which, admittedly, has driven down certain wages, or the shift in manufacturing from high- to low-wage countries, which also has held down salaries.
Though I’ve only partially accounted for those for whom, in my view, freedom has come to be defined negatively or defensively, I believe we disregard, at our peril, the increasing numbers of people today who feel consistently devalued and subjugated.
"disproportionate power distribution - perpetrated by the constitutional errors of two senators from each state no matter its population and of the electoral college, as well as later injustices such as the filibuster" as a naturalized citizen this is impossible for me to wrap my head around! This "constitutional
Lin, excellent description of our world today. The international list of Democracies has included India for quite some time. I believed that was an optimistic mistake. Now I’m thinking the same of the USA. The diehard repubs here already claim USA is a republic not a Democracy. We can’t divide ourselves by North/South this time.
Irenie, I hope you don’t mind my writing considering your reply was addressed to lin.
While I subscribe to your point about India and the States, I would note that we were founded as a democratic republic (a representative government by popular consent) and remain so, though we have become increasingly democratic. Recall, for example, that in 1789 only white male property owners could vote, and that neither the Senate nor the Presidency was subject to the vote of the people. Having said that, I would amplify that the anti-democratic institutions lin mentions—the electoral college; the Senate, replete with 2 Senators from each state regardless of population size; and the disfunctional, and in my view, unconstitutional filibuster that operates as a veto of the minority over the will of the majority all either should be reformed, if not abolished.
Given the difficult mechanics of amending the Constitution, there are some options to consider that do not require it.
-> Repeal the 1929 law limiting the size of the House of Representatives, passed explicitly for racist and anti-immigrant reasons. This would at least make the House and therefore the electoral college more responsive to the majority.
-> The National Compact for the Popular Vote, once adopted by enough states to produce a majority in the electoral college, would direct all those states' electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.
-> Elect more Senators who are willing to get rid of the filibuster, or at least set it aside to pass important legislation.
Joan, Thank you for your listing of realistic reforms, to which I would add granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico. Additionally, I would note, while an advocate of the Interstate Compact, I don’t expect it to get much beyond the 196, give or take, electoral votes it has so far amassed.
Granting statehood to Washington, D.C. is appropriate, is known to be wanted by the residents, and would help with the balance of power in the Senate. It's not clear that the people of Puerto Rico want statehood, nor who they would elect if they had it.
Joan, While responding to your most recent comment, I noticed I had neglected to ❤️ your earlier one for redirecting my thinking to more feasible remedies.
The question is not republic vs democracy. The question is whether we will have a winner-take-all authoritarian hierarchy with a subgroup of white men ruling harshly over the rest of us, or an increasingly representative and pluralist democracy.
democratic republic... just a democracy would be too crazy and wild, too.
don't think we're so much north/south divided today ... tho it does often seem that way. we're divided in many ways now... esp up/down (have/have not) instead of right/left or north/south
Heather's book, "How the South Won the Civil War" (her excellent online history classes based on it) makes the case that among other things, that war was about oligarchy (south at that time) vs. democracy (north at that time). and we can see right now where we are on that.
Right. A democratic republic. "Demos" is people and the "public" in republic is people as well. Non-representative democracy does not scale well at all, and is pretty irrelevant to discussions of American politics; yet for some reason right wingers think it is clever to claim that we are not supposed to be a democracy. The truth is that most modern Republicans don't really want a real republic. They just want to rule the roost.
Yes. India was always an experiment in democracy, vulnerable to internal conflicts and self contradictions. Instead of preserving the ideals which drove its overthrow of British tyranny and being an exemplary contrast to its enemies, India has become more like them - a violently racist right wing religious extremist state with an authoritarian executive, a corrupt judiciary, and a legislature dominated by the craven, cowardly, and complicit. With a lot of flag waving to hide a myriad of sins. Oh, wait.
Here at home, our flag has been appropriated by those violently opposed to the virtues it is meant to symbolize. The majority of Americans oppose today's Republican party agenda, but disproportionate power distribution - perpetrated by the constitutional errors of two senators from each state no matter its population and of the electoral college, as well as later injustices such as the filibuster, gerrymandering, and the Leonard Leo Federalist Society corruption of the Supreme Court - make the struggle almost impossibly difficult for democratic minded citizens to prevail.
During my time in India I could never reconcile the fact that Gandhi is on all the paper currency but what they really worship is their military.
The Federalist Society has corrupted most of the federal judiciary. McConnell used Trump to get almost 300 young ideologues onto the bench, regardless of whether they were qualified or not. That is a wound that will take at least a generation to heal.
Sorry, but as a lawyer practicing for more than 50 years (albeit mostly in state, not federal courts), I reject your contention that most of the federal judiciary is corrupt. That that is not so is shown by the number of decisions against Trump and his co-conspirators issued by judges he appointed. The federal courts are highly imperfect, but they are not the cesspool you imply.
Thank you, Jon, for addressing the tendency toward hysteria that sometimes breaks out here because people lack the context in which to place the limited set of facts they are exposed to. I do wish people would read more widely and not depend so much on a single source. It is unfair to Heather to expect her to provide the corrective back story on everything that pops into people's minds.
Sheesh, ADS .
The fact of right wing ideologue appointees to the Federal Bench didn't just pop into people's minds. Nor is our concern about the impact hysteria.
Instead of looking your nose down or turning it up at fellow commenters, you might provide some context for your rosy view.
I'll do your homework for you. Republicans brought in big gun DC lawyers and expert witness in their attempt to stop the count and when that failed to overturn Maine's first Ranked Choice Voting election. Their case was so egregiously flawed (the Univ. Of Maryland, College Park prof EW had never done any research on RCV and actually perjured himself in asserting otherwise, his argument was that elderly and minority voters were too stupid to understand RCV and so it violated our civil rights) that Judge Lance Walker called their argument conclusory, and invited them back when they'd learned something about Maine voters and about RCV. Walker was fast tracked by Trump et al and this was not his only fair decision.
lin•, perhaps you could respond to Jon Margolis's comment? He spoke from his decades-long experience as a lawyer. You spoke of one particular case in which you have an interest -- and you led by insulting Annie D. Stratton for no reason. The odd thing is that your anecdote about Judge Walker seems to support the proposition that the federal bench is not corrupt. (Last I looked, no one was defending the GOP's lawyers.)
Please see my reply to JM below. As MisTBlu wrote we should be concerned about the Federalist appointees on the bench. Concern is neither ignorance nor hysteria. And Yes, I did AD's homework for her by giving an actual example of a Federalist appointee who seems not to be a stinker. Black swans and all that.
My name is Annie, lin. By all means feel free to use it. I don't rate initials yet. And please don't make assumptions about how I think. You haven't been here long enough, and you don't pay enough attention to what people are actually saying.
Sounds like you didn't have your morning coffee or tea. Ad hominem attacks are not in keeping with the comment section in Dr. Richardson's Letter to America. I found this because I read widely and was aware of her expertise in American history. I assume most people who subscribe to this Substack "read widely" and don't base their comments on a "limited set of facts."
For the most part you'd be right. But quite a few don't. I addressed my post to that issue alone, and the misconceptions that sometimes arise from it. BTW, coffee and the lack or surplus of it is a running joke here that you will recognize when you've been around a bit longer. We like to kid ourselves about it. It's hard work to take oneself too seriously.
"Corruption" in the courts is not an across-the-board miasma. Key figures within the court are "corrupt" in the sense of extremist positions on specific issues. It's a bit like your sister's uncle: nice guy, polite, hard worker, kind to animals, but do NOT get him started on Space Aliens.
In addition, 90% (99%?) of all legal issues are basically paper-pushing. Much of it is routine: wills, trusts, marriages. In cases that need to be adjudicated, guilt/fault is often obvious, people plead "no contest," pay the fine, do the time, and it's done. Next.
The problem arises when a key case makes its way through the court, or is "revisited." E.g. Roe v Wade.
I think it's fair to say that there are at least four, perhaps five truly (and deeply) "corrupt" justices serving on the Supreme Court, and that has shaken the entire structure of the court system. What they have done is unconscionable, and has not been in the service of justice or society, and that has spread to a lack of confidence in the "courts" as a whole, because it affects the courts as a whole.
There's another thing I haven't seen discussed. (Doesn't mean it hasn't, but I have not seen it.) That is timing.
You do NOT approach a grieving mother who has just lost a child with your hands in your pockets, and say, "You know you really are a lousy housekeeper. Look at this dump!"
This is exactly what the SC has done. Let's hold our noses and toy with the argument that maybe their insane RvW ruling has some kind of merit. Of ALL the times to bring this up, the immediate aftermath of an attempted coup, after a political packing of the court under a filibuster conspiracy, is ... well, in the kindest possible light, it demonstrates a contemptible lack of sound judgement. But it really looks more like a parallel thrust of the coup, a conspiracy with the coup, and an additional attack on the integrity of the country.
and the whole premise rests on justified confidence in it's process.
Yes. There is a presumption of trust. They have seriously violated that, and it is why I say their actions are unconscionable.
Most of the folks who comprise the federal judiciary are not corrupt. The point is that the objectivity and impartiality of the judiciary has been corrupted by partisanship. How much shit do you have to put in the soup before it’s ruined?
Your metaphor stinks. :-) As intended. I love it!
I should have been more measured. It's not that the federal judiciary is corrupt it's that the Federalist Society and McConnell have attempted to corrupt it. When you appoint dozens of young, highly ideological and unqualified attorneys to lifetime positions you have diminished it's effectiveness. That a couple of Trump's appointees did the right thing in highly publicized cases is a good thing. But they are going to be on the court for decades and most of their decisions will not be highly publicized. My only hope is that a lot of them will find that they don't like the work and will resign or, sad to say, that their lack of experience will trip them up and they'll be forced to resign. The fact that some of them had never even been inside a courtroom (except for moot court) shows the lengths to which Mitch and Leo, with the unwitting help of Donald, went to to get their dream court.
MisTBlu
I think you were quite clear from the start. And that you were misread. And then ... off to the races. I appreciate your further explication as it sometimes helps to spell things out, even when not exactly necessary.
In my view, no quarter to bullies;)
Hmm JM a bit tetchy? Defensive much?
MsTBlu just reported the facts on the number of Leo/McConnell/Trump Federal bench appointees, many of whose primary qualification is allegiance to Republican racist right wing religious extremist ideology. And some even appointed on bi partisan Senate votes.
You might put that in a greater context, which you didn't. But the stench is not lessened by a few high profile cases decided against Trump.
I’m curious Fern, about what makes a “sneer” in your world view. As I sort of thought that the suggestion that another posters words were hysterical and ignorant of facts a bit sneerish? “Thank you, Jon, for addressing the tendency toward hysteria that sometimes breaks out here because people lack the context in which to place the limited set of facts they are exposed to. I do wish people would read more widely and not depend so much on a single source.” I’m not the thought police nor a judge, so in the scheme of things it’s not that important but If pot is calling the kettle black I think it’s worth shining a light on
As worried as many of us are, having followed the spate of decisions about voting irregularities, your point is well taken. But today’s decision about keeping the affidavit sealed will tell a lot about the court. To find against the DOJ would surely be the end of US, given the secrets revealed.
Mitch may have delivered the blow that will eventually be fatal. He certainly tried hard enough.
Yes, and Kevin McCarthy is feeding the fire of violence now, with absolutely no thought to what his words are inflaming. The blood is on both their hands. We had January 6, and now the barrage of horrible threats and evil acts have begun. Trump would never ask any of his mindless followers to back down, but both of these titled leaders could do so. I am so filled with anger and fear right now. Every time we observe actions that give us hope that trump’s era is coming to an end, there is more bitter news. I’m needing all of you and Heather to keep hope alive.
💀💀💀
Federalist Society honcho Leonard Leo has his summer headquarters here at 46 SouthShore Road, NorthEast Harbor, Mount Desert, Maine 04662
We have been having regular peaceful pop up protests. But Leo brought undue pressure on a sympathetic local cop to arrest a young man - for shouting 'FU gaspole' from a moving car on Main Street. Not the sort of thing the disorderly conduct statute seems to have been intended for or used for previously. That amped up the protests. Lots of thumbs up from the community and tourists. Though it turns out even many savvy and informed people don't know who Leo is.
re Protests, excellent op-ed
https://www.mdislander.com/opinions/commentary/viewpoint-what-has-changed-on-mount-desert-island
re Leo
https://newrepublic.com/article/166993/leonard-leo-christian-right-future
re House purchase
"The sellers were the heirs of chemical giant W.R. Grace chairman and CEO J. Peter Grace, who was the head of the U.S. branch of the Knights of Malta, a 971-year-old conservative Roman Catholic order to which Leo also belongs. Two months before the closing – which occurred at the height of the Senate debate over the Kavanaugh nomination – the Leos also paid off the mortgage on their primary home in McLean, Virginia.
https://www.centralmaine.com/2019/08/18/why-did-trumps-judge-whisperer-buy-a-house-on-the-maine-coast/
Thank you, lin!! An eye-opener, for sure! Leo is despicable. Do you think the Catholic Order is funding him?
Leo deals in dark money funneled through shell companies. Dodgy donors to dubious enterprises - including to Susan Collins and to some guy who rented buses for Jan 6 protestors.
Catholic funding? Who knows.
Knights of Malta and Opus Dei connections? Verified.
👍🏻
Wow. Thanks for this information, including about about who "gaspole" is in the first place. All new to me.
Absolutely great link. I am already in full court press mode but this article gives me more energy.
Wow! Excellent piece by Salon! Jacobus is right in her last statement about Dems are fearful of Repubs. We have to call them out loudly when they lie and foment fear!
Let us not forget about two prominent members of The Federalist Society: Wray and Kavanaugh, at one time college chums. Then, remember how Kavanaugh was NOT fully vetted by the FBI.
A $200,000 baseball ticket debt was mysteriously paid off for Kavanaugh right before his nomination.
Nobody checked to see who paid.
Kavanaugh is a political prostitute for someone.
If I recall, the FBI did not fully vet Kavanaugh because the Trump White House tied their hands by severely limiting the scope of investigation and the time frame.
"Wray confirmed that background investigations are handled differently from other FBI probes and that the scope of inquiries into judicial nominees is dictated by the White House."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/kavanaugh-fbi-probe-limit-888667
Thank you for clarifying this. Still, Kavanaugh and Wray are reported as having been or are colleagues/associates. The "Politico" article is helpful.
👍🏻
Yes, you are so correct on every count.
Truth.
I wonder if India's celebration of her Military is because of the endless hostility and hatred toward Pakistan?
EXPAND THE COURTS NOW!!!
If my recall is correct, there now are 13 federal district courts. There should be 13 Supreme Court Justices. Actually, I believe the Supreme Court should have 15 justices. That each justice can serve no more than 40 years. That every 8 years they come under judicial review by a select panel.
Am really hoping that happens.
Not is some of them are indicted for crimes against democracy!
Give the “majority of Americans oppos[ing] today's Republican party agenda” the tools they need. Eliminate the primary system and institute ranked choice voting.
We will see how ranked choice voting works.
If ranked choice voting had been in place in Maine, it might have spared the state 8 years of misery under a despicable governor who won twice with about 36% of the vote. The independent challenger sucked away votes.
Ranked choice voting encourages us to vote for the person we truly believe represents our views and goals. But it also means that if that person is not the winner (Independent, Green or Libertarian) our second choice is counted in the final tally.
So you could have voted for Ralph Nader to show your support and if you had selected Al Gore as your second, he could have won the election.
Good post. Similarly, I voted Ross Perot in 1992.
His resistance to NAFTA rang true.
All these years later we know he was right.
That “giant sucking sound” was indeed huge job losses for Americans.
Not exactly BA. In a tragic irony, RCV - which was instituted to correct the Elliot Cutler crew elects Paul LePage effect - cannot be used in the gubernatorial race because of a sentence in the state constitution.
RCV has worked in Maine for one Federal election. But a caveat. It totally depends on the third party/independent candidate crowd putting a major party candidate as their second ranked choice - no guarantees there.
Maine instituted RCV through a Voters Initiative - after the 'person not party crowd' gave Trump before Trump TeaParty Paul LePage the governorship TWICE by voting for, now indicted and self confessed child pornographer, self funded candidate Elliot Cutler. Ironically, because of a sentence in the state constitution, RCV cannot be used in the gubernatorial election.
Ah, but those "independents" are "purer" than the rest of us (no, they're not, they're politically illiterate morons who are the best proof that Mencken was right 98 years ago when he said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American.")
Maine has an Independent Senator who caucauses with the Democrats, and was an Independent Governor before that.
Recently anyway, nobody ever lost an election by not listening to a political pundit. The side of the barn was missed so badly in 2016 that few would even venture a guess in 2020. Things really have not improved since then, beyond those willing to state the obvious and call it a prediction. How did America's pundit class get, and remain, so out of touch?
... excess privilege ...?
'Liked' it, not sure Substack noticed.
Spoilers, at least in my lifetime
I track and often respond to Environmental Letters to the Editor and try and correct misinformation and take the opportunity to provide correct information.
I am struck by the high numbers of collective Right Wing Views who publish opinions either articles, letters and comments thereto obviously developed from a single source.
The spread of misinformation is organized by specific categories for example wind turbine energy and solar energy each with different players reflecting various but specific Far Right Wing propaganda.
So many of the “independents,” keep the Trump Idiocy afloat by adhering to the moronic anti-Science spectrum developed by the Extreme Right.
Keep on correcting misinformation please.
We are using it in Alaska. And I see other states are.
When it delivers Sarah Palin back to office, write and tell us how good it is.
No contest - vote for Mary Peltola
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mary-peltola-palin-aug-blueamp?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=9ce69685-3386-4129-81ff-9a19ad960511
(( Sarah needs to go back to basketball!!))
I'll go out on a limb and say that Sarah isn't coming back. At least not in AK. She burned too many bridges. Maybe now that the Republicans in AZ have forgotten John McCain she might have some support, but Kari Lake already has her market share covered. And then some.
RCV in operation in CA & includes not only primaries, but voting registrtion & voting rights.
Ranked choice is already used in Maine and Alaska as well as about 20 cities and local communities in the US.
Yes, we had a bit of a problem on the first go round here.
Can you elaborate?
The top 4 are supposed to be on the ballot. One of the top four withdrew from the race. the fifth person was not included then in the top four. Went to a judge who denied the fifth person a place in the top four.
Portland (OR) will use it for city council races if a major overhaul of the grossly antiquated city government structure is approved in a referendum.
You are talking about Alaska, yes?
Yes. But CA is going to try it, are they not?
Not yet. My feeling is that it works in small-population states like Maine and Alaska but I'm not certain how it would work in a large-population state like California with federal, state and local candidates plus the usual 10-15 initiatives plus all the judges and school boards etc etc etc
No they are not considering it. We are too populated.
OK. good to know.
Yes, see https://www.fairvoteca.org.
Our specific county has not adopted ranked voting so this is news to me.
"and to the republic for which it stands"
"If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men." - John Adams
Washington, Adams, Hamilton,Monroe, Jefferson, Laurens, Madison, Franklin, et al, would be absolutely stunned at the number of members of Congress who currently flaunt the Constitution with impunity. How could so many with so little respect for the rule of law be elected to office at the same time? How could a populous be so collectively gullible at the same time?
“It’s a democracy, madam, if you can keep it” - Franklin
More likely flout than flaunt, but yes, I think the founders would be appalled. As for the pervasiveness of the corruption we witness today, there is always some background level of that, but it appears to me that Republicans turned decidedly anti-democratic and contemptuous of rule of law with Reagan, by whom the press and the public seemed utterly snookered, and the "GOP" has been hacking away at governmental integrity ever since; growing ever bolder, the more corruption has be legalized and normalized. Have they finally overplayed their hand?
Yes.
And yes, they have overplayed. The majority of this nation wants democracy and fair elections that are easy to vote in. While I think we will be playing "whackamole" with the liars and deniers forever. But ultimately we will see some big names in the "big house".
The reaction on the right will be violent and bloody. But we shouldn't be intimidated. Let them rant while we calmly enforce the law.
It's more serious than playing 'whackamole.' How do we 'calmly enforce the law' when the 'reaction on the right will be violent and bloody'? When they realize that the DOJ is approaching its 'end game,' and their keeping their king out of check much longer will be impossible, they will just kick over the table and knock the chessboard to the floor. They tried that on January 6 and will try it again. If merely executing a legally obtained search warrant has resulted in physical threats to a judge and at least one attack on an FBI offfice, imagine what the result of a grand jury indictment would be. No, it's not just 'whackamole.' There is no question in my mind that the United States government is totally capable of dealing with such violations of the law and attacks on the Constitution, but doing so without diminishing our freedoms, at least temporarily, will be difficult.
I think it is "whackamole" in the sense that crime and corruption never goes entirely away, a bit like infectious illnesses never entirely go away, but now we are dealing with an "epidemic" in terms of scale.
Difficult, for sure. I did not mean to minimize the situation. Our authorities may need to fight fire with fire. There may be some violent standoffs. When I say calmy, I mean firmly and consistently under the rule of law. If that means calling on our big guns to put down violent seditionists...so be it.
Glad to see that those of US who want to retain democracy are ready for a fight. Meanwhile, as the pen is mightier than the sword… .
I, unfortunately agree with you. The majority of people who stand for democracy may need to give up a few freedoms in order to deal with homegrown terrorists and an internet mouthpiece that spews propaganda 24/7 and gives them a place to organize. We have to deal with the modern era of this kind of cyber-warfare against our people and democracy, by our own people willing to work for the highest bidders. I am afraid there must be restrictions on anyone allowed in high positions if they are against All The People or aid and abet insurrections, treason and espionage right in front of our damned faces. And we pay for their salaries and bennies...still. The presidential pardon and the fifth amendment have nearly destroyed our ability to function judiciously with blatant criminals. Out with them, I say! Out damned spots—the pardon, the fifth and the thugs! Sounds like potential name/s of a book or a band.
You are surely right about whackamole, but we really need to get whacking.
You nailed it.
This is not the first time the US has had to deal with rebellion. Washington sent troops to subdue anti-tax rebels. They backed down. I have complete faith in our law enforcement system and personnel to take out and/or take control of any fascists who take up arms against us and the US. Their commanders will calmly give the orders as directed by a calm and careful President.
Teflon Don is going down, down, down.....
J L Graham. " Have they finally overplayed their hand?" That is my bet.
Keep waiting for the moment when they do. And when it comes, let’s be ready for it with new language for democracy and the schools to teach it.
One can dream, but they have been busy on all fronts. It’s their last shot at the power “conservatives” have dreamed of for decades, and their “get out of jail free card”
Founders would be appalled, tho not surprised, I don't believe. What's your definition of 'overplaying' ??? What are you thinking happens in that case?
On the one hand I worry that Republicans may succeed in a procedural coup. On the other, their narrative has become so shamelessly wacko, enough prodding might cause it to collapse.
Rupert for starters, way before social media. The minister of propaganda. Stop with the “how can a populous be so collectively gullible at the same time.” Deliberate ignorance is way worse than stupidity…
I think the issue is not for the most part lack of cognitive ability, and I know some quite clever MAGA believers. I think we are all vulnerable to some measure of narcissistic cult dynamics, and certainly our team vs theirs, which schools very much encourage. The killer mental malware is encouragement and often coercion to demonize outsiders and reject any input from outside the cult as heresy. I think it can resemble psychosis.
I refer to it as "chosen ignorance".
But there is a lot of genuine stupidity brought on by cupidity. We mustn’t confuse “shrewd” with “intelligent.”
Or "wise"
Picky detail: Franklin’s quote was “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
Word, Joan.
I agree and note that we are stunned that some of them we slaveholders. Yet the Revolution could easily have produced a new Boss, same as the old Boss, and didn't. Lucky for us the their project was pretty firm foundation for operating and even expanding shared human empowerment, so long as the preponderance of the population approached it in good faith. But in any configuration of give and take there is a temptation to cheat. We reinforce good faith by shunning the cheaters, especially in sports, but the urge is so much more compelling in political contests, and sometimes the results are horrifying. We even dress up our ugliest narcissistic bullying in regal robes, and claim that God made us do it.
One of Lincoln's most repeated thoughts was "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The issue of the era was literal slavery, but insofar as it can be considered the core of a democracy, I think it still works when you change out "master" for "bully" or another name for coercive subjugation. It took us longer to recognize systemic bullying in societal responses to gender. Not surprisingly the origins of the women's suffrage movement and abolition were allied. The struggle to universalize the rights of life, liberty and responsible pursuit of happiness goes on. Bullying and justice are polar opposites.
We were somehow caught snoozing when Republicans opened their medicine show for the teachings of Milton Friedman,, who claimed as an axiom "The only corporate social responsibility a company has is to maximize its profits." and a "Republican" Supreme Court that grants the rights of persons to corporations. What kind of citizen is that?
Republicans are wont to claim the authority of the Bible, yet Timothy says the the love of money is the root of all evil. "Love" in this context I take to mean, that which you value over all else, that for which you sacrifice other things, and in my view, money is a species of power. What does such "love" displace? Follow the money.
To what degree has the legitimatized love of money warped and displaced the national aspiration of liberty and justice for all; actually all.
Man!!! You are on a roll today, JL... great things you're writing!! Thank you for bringing your wise observations to this group.
And thank you, JL Graham for “wise,” which for me implies “good.” And it is not always linked to intelligence because it needn’t be.
"And it is not always linked to intelligence because it needn’t be."
My mother told me that. I think wisdom has something to do with emotional and intellectual maturity, and I think that has more to do with integrity than talent, and is only loosely connect to age (contrast Trump with Greta Thunberg). And I think intelligence is allied but not identical with powers of observation, the ability to recognize what is there and what is most significant. That is where the young often show up adults who are set in their ways. It is the kid who shouts without reservation that "the Emperor is naked".
I hope it is useful.
Great post. Thank you.
Do you remember the Golden Calf of the Old Testament? At 8, I knew what it meant. Of course it helped that my mother was fond of saying from time to time “The love of money is the root of all evil.” She was a ferocious Virginian and knew noblesse oblige.
Almost impossible for democratically-inclined citizens to prevail? And yet Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress, they have a good chance to increase the majority in the Senate, and the chances of holding on to the House are improving with every passing day.
Jon, While I share your understanding at the federal level, I, nonetheless, believe we should operate as though we were trailing by 10 points. As for defending democracy at the state and local levels, I understand that groups like The States Project are mobilizing in unprecedented ways, well aware that Republicans ruthlessly are organizing to fill state and local positions with their own people—people who don’t believe in free and fair elections.
As a final point, I would note that Democracy Docket founder Marc Elias has discussed a Republican election subversion plan he expects will be enacted as early as this fall. Admittedly, Elias is not suggesting that Republican election officials are laying the groundwork blatantly to declare their candidates the winner whether or not the candidate wins enough votes. He views the Republican election subversion plan as more sophisticated than that. Rather, Elias anticipates that Republicans will use “false allegations of fraud as a pretext to remove ballots from the vote totals and then certify those incomplete results.”
Though I don’t doubt that when litigation ensues Elias and his team will mount arguments whose conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence, I am not as confident that our courts will stand for the beacons of democracy that we need them to be.
The antidote is not to elect those people. In Arizona, I suggest Adrian Fontes, Democratic candidate for secretary of state.
https://electfontes.com/
Jon, Your reply does not account for a critical fact: GOP controlled state legislatures currently are changing state election rules to change who can be in charge, how votes are counted, and how they’re certified. Here, I would note, that while we can contend with voter suppression measures by turbo-charging turnout, no amount of organizing is going to get us around voter nullification provisions.
My point is not to give up, but to recognize, absent any federal voter protection safeguards barring a severely gutted 1965 Voting Rights Act, that we will have to summon a renewed definition of ourselves as citizens—something closer to the nation of active stakeholders that leaders like Thomas Jefferson had in mind.
I read a few different pieces yesterday. Here's one: https://flux.community/matthew-sheffield/2022/06/election-fraud-is-real-and-its-republicans-who-are-doing-it/
Suz, Thanks for the link. I do worry that we are failing to address the efforts underway to undermine the fall elections.
I think we really need to stop promoting the right wing lie that the Democrats control Congress. The slim margin in the House was made acutely clear with H.R. 1808, the assault weapon ban. which passed 217-213. Five Democrats voted no. If it wasn't for the yes votes of two Republicans the bill would have failed because the vote would have been tied at 215-215. The Senate is 50:50 so the only thing they have any control over is the committees. That's not nothing but it doesn't amount to "control of Congress."
@MisTBlu, Though your reply was not addressed to me, I would note, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, that the messaging should focus on the increasingly impressive list of Democratic accomplishments despite the narrow margin in the House and the 50-50 Senate. I understand, starting next week, that the President, the Vice President and Cabinet members plan to hit the campaign trail both to amplify the Party’s achievements and to underscore the outstanding transformative legislation that will become law if the Dems hold the House and pick up 2 Senate seats.
Excellent!
Well, if Democrats don't control Congress no one does. Back early in the GWB administration the president's main policy plank was to get rid of, or hollow out, Social Security. Didn't happen, although Republicans had majorities in both houses, and the White House, too. Still, it would have been wrong in almost everyone's eyes to say that they did not control Congress.
To me, complete control of Congress means having a super majority in the Senate, something no party has had since the 95th session (1977-1979).
Using GWB's attempts to radically change Social Security isn't very applicable as there was never a bill on which Congress had to take a vote. Even the wingiest Republican understands that they can bad talk entitlements*; they can talk up the benefits of privatization; they can even pull a Rick Scott and propose eliminating it completely; but they can do that knowing that there will never be an actual bill to which they'd be required to say Aye.
*the use of the term "entitlements" instead of "benefits" is all part of the decades long effort to undermine Social Security and, since 1965, Medicare.
oh no there's definitely control of Congress ... big $$$$ controls Congress
lin, While I don’t dispute any of your points regarding either India or the States, from my perspective here in the States, we stay in the fight despite seemingly impossible odds and despite perhaps never knowing, before making significant progress, whether or how our individual efforts mattered.
I think that a large part of what keeps authoritarianism popular is the uncertainty of faith part of it, and by "faith" I'm not talking about God or the Force, or whatever taking one's side. It the matter of putting discipline and effort into something that ultimately depends on the kindred efforts of like-minded people whose behavior you cannot control. It's doing something because you think it's the just thing to do with no assurance of reward at the end of it. It's contributing to a wave that may or may not make a difference.
Authoritarians, by contrast, get things done as a matter of edict. Do or else. Ruling by rewards and fear, they tend to get what they ask for; or at least they don't tolerate resistance. Build the Wall, devastate the families of outsiders, win no matter what, no holds barred. So long as you can bear to identify with that agenda, it can make you feel invulnerable. Unless you think about it.
@ J L Graham, First my apologies for this exceedingly delayed reply, which I hope, after a number of days, you still find meaningful. To start, I believe a host of factors have to be taken into account when those to whom we could lose our democracy believe they are fighting for their freedoms. Broadly speaking, no democracy can survive with a working/middle class so aggrieved that it is willing to accept any authoritarian option seeming to offer, in their view, a modicum of social and economic equity. I count among said persons those who have been the victims of modernity’s unevenly distributed opportunity and prosperity, whether due to technological changes that increasingly have rewarded higher educated workers over the less skilled, rising immigration which, admittedly, has driven down certain wages, or the shift in manufacturing from high- to low-wage countries, which also has held down salaries.
Though I’ve only partially accounted for those for whom, in my view, freedom has come to be defined negatively or defensively, I believe we disregard, at our peril, the increasing numbers of people today who feel consistently devalued and subjugated.
It’s uphill for sure, but certainly possible. If we each do what we can, the odds get better.
Geometrically
WE SHALL PREVAIL!!! The Light Always Outshines The Darkness!!! They can all either go to prison, or move to Budapest!!!
"disproportionate power distribution - perpetrated by the constitutional errors of two senators from each state no matter its population and of the electoral college, as well as later injustices such as the filibuster" as a naturalized citizen this is impossible for me to wrap my head around! This "constitutional
Lin, excellent description of our world today. The international list of Democracies has included India for quite some time. I believed that was an optimistic mistake. Now I’m thinking the same of the USA. The diehard repubs here already claim USA is a republic not a Democracy. We can’t divide ourselves by North/South this time.
Irenie, I hope you don’t mind my writing considering your reply was addressed to lin.
While I subscribe to your point about India and the States, I would note that we were founded as a democratic republic (a representative government by popular consent) and remain so, though we have become increasingly democratic. Recall, for example, that in 1789 only white male property owners could vote, and that neither the Senate nor the Presidency was subject to the vote of the people. Having said that, I would amplify that the anti-democratic institutions lin mentions—the electoral college; the Senate, replete with 2 Senators from each state regardless of population size; and the disfunctional, and in my view, unconstitutional filibuster that operates as a veto of the minority over the will of the majority all either should be reformed, if not abolished.
Given the difficult mechanics of amending the Constitution, there are some options to consider that do not require it.
-> Repeal the 1929 law limiting the size of the House of Representatives, passed explicitly for racist and anti-immigrant reasons. This would at least make the House and therefore the electoral college more responsive to the majority.
-> The National Compact for the Popular Vote, once adopted by enough states to produce a majority in the electoral college, would direct all those states' electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.
-> Elect more Senators who are willing to get rid of the filibuster, or at least set it aside to pass important legislation.
Joan, Thank you for your listing of realistic reforms, to which I would add granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico. Additionally, I would note, while an advocate of the Interstate Compact, I don’t expect it to get much beyond the 196, give or take, electoral votes it has so far amassed.
Granting statehood to Washington, D.C. is appropriate, is known to be wanted by the residents, and would help with the balance of power in the Senate. It's not clear that the people of Puerto Rico want statehood, nor who they would elect if they had it.
Joan, Thank you for the questions regarding statehood for Puerto Rico. I will do my homework before, again, raising the matter.
Joan, While responding to your most recent comment, I noticed I had neglected to ❤️ your earlier one for redirecting my thinking to more feasible remedies.
The question is not republic vs democracy. The question is whether we will have a winner-take-all authoritarian hierarchy with a subgroup of white men ruling harshly over the rest of us, or an increasingly representative and pluralist democracy.
democratic republic... just a democracy would be too crazy and wild, too.
don't think we're so much north/south divided today ... tho it does often seem that way. we're divided in many ways now... esp up/down (have/have not) instead of right/left or north/south
Heather's book, "How the South Won the Civil War" (her excellent online history classes based on it) makes the case that among other things, that war was about oligarchy (south at that time) vs. democracy (north at that time). and we can see right now where we are on that.
Right. A democratic republic. "Demos" is people and the "public" in republic is people as well. Non-representative democracy does not scale well at all, and is pretty irrelevant to discussions of American politics; yet for some reason right wingers think it is clever to claim that we are not supposed to be a democracy. The truth is that most modern Republicans don't really want a real republic. They just want to rule the roost.
👍🏻
Yes, lin, your "oh wait" should have had exclamation points!! Sounds exactly like the modern rethuglican's total regime goals.