America is in danger of losing something very important in politics: the concept of a Loyal Opposition. It ensures continuity from one administration to another, particularly through the peaceful transfer of power. Also central is the notion that minority parties can legitimately criticize, even oppose, the government without automatic…
America is in danger of losing something very important in politics: the concept of a Loyal Opposition. It ensures continuity from one administration to another, particularly through the peaceful transfer of power. Also central is the notion that minority parties can legitimately criticize, even oppose, the government without automatically committing treason or a crime. The origins lie in late 17C England after the "Glorious" Revolution of 1688, as the country moved from the turmoil of the Stuart era into the more stable and prosperous 18C. It actually predates democracy, first functioning to moderate conflict between Court (royal) and Country (parliamentary) aristocratic factions. Gradually it extended to party rivalries and ultimately all kinds of representative government.
Loyal opposition may be codified as in the UK and other Commonwealth countries, or have more the status of tradition as in the US. It can serve as a needed check on government authority, but also to prevent government from exercising any authority. That latter weakness, as exploited by the GOP, is now destabilizing the country in dangerous and unpredictable ways. When the opposition won't accept election results, allow peaceful power transfer, or renounce violence as an instrument of policy, its disloyalty threatens the entire foundation of the nation's political system. In 1861 Lincoln expressed its essence: "We must settle this question now -- whether in a free government the minority have the right to break it up whenever they choose. If we fail, it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves." It is essential to know what's at risk before it is gone forever.
(Written mostly from memory, so pardon any errors)
S Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution
J Plumb, The Growth of Political Stability in England
Hmm. I would rephrase the context. It’s true that the Republican party has turned to extremism. In doing so, it has alienated your Loyal Opposition. The Lincoln Project. 43 for Biden. The other anti-Trump groups like those two. Joe Scarborough, Jennifer Rubin, Nicole Wallace, George Will, et al. The thousands or maybe tens of thousands of Republicans who have left the party since January 6. Larry Hogan. Mitt Romney. Liz Cheney. Evan McMullin’s group of Zoom conferencers. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. There are plenty of loyal oppositionists left, it’s just that they’ve been disenfranchised. Now they’re without a party, they’re on their own for the time being.
I don’t think your loyal opposition has disappeared, I think it has been left homeless.
“That latter weakness, as exploited by the GOP, is now destabilizing the country in dangerous and unpredictable ways.”
True. However, notice the backlash. The extremists were being ignored, pretty much, probably dismissed as inconsequential. Now, since Jan. 6, they are being criminalized.
The funding sources for the GOP are turning against the sedition caucus. That put Moscow Mitch in a bind, and he had to come down with the business community and against Trump. The fracture has already happened. Now the question is how is it going to play out. Let’s watch the show together 🍿🍿
While we’re watching the show together, I will mention another possibility: criminalization of the Republican Party itself. Notice that the Proud Boys are now a designated terrorist organization in Canada. That’s not really a good sign for them, or for the other participants in the January 6 Riot. If QAnon and Proud Boys et al as organizations begin to get viewed that way here, it could stain the party irrevocably. If their reputation becomes too badly smeared, alternatively it could allow the loyal opposition to reclaim what was once theirs. The R Party was all my life a haven for racists like Reagan, but not for anarchists. It’s the anarchists, like the sedition senators and House members, that are ruining this Party.
Should we be distressed about that? You may be. I’m not. The loyal oppositionists will find a way to regroup.
I’m not worried. It’ll sort itself out. I think your loyal opposition is alive and well, I just think they are like an army and retreat. Disorganized, demoralized. But they will rally eventually.
TPJ and Roland--you're both right, in my opinion (although full disclosure: I am totally not a fan of Pinker, who is not an historian but plays one on TV, which is the problem; see the issue of Historical Reflections I saw through publication as my last job as senior editor for the historians' view--The Pinker Thesis). The concept of the Loyal Opposition in British parliamentary politics is one that developed gradually, as did the concept of political parties; it certainly was not part of the system when "parliament" was invented in the 13th century, when it was used as both a rubber stamp for raising money by the Crown and as a brake on royal overreach. By the late 18th century, the calcification of the parliamentary system into one that was managed by political parties (which happened more during the reigns of Anne and George I than as a result of the "Whigs" in 1688--they were not the organized party they became 50 years later) had embedded in it a notion of loyal opposition because the people running the show might differ on the methods used, but they were a homogeneous bunch of elite white men who agreed that the maintenance of power among the white (non-Irish) elite was the most important thing, especially in response to the French Revolution.
The Republicans have served as the maintainer of the notion of elite whiteness being the most important criterion for political power for a very long time (and yes: I find that ironic). As long as the Dems when in power present a similar front and don't rock the boat re: whiteness, maleness, and elite status, they have operated more or less as a "loyal" opposition. But when the Dems actually embrace the "big tent" ideology of the party and start to push against the lack of inclusion and try to be more equitable in its distribution of power and authority, the Republicans turn into reactionaries and autocrats (which I think is more accurate than anarchists): people who want to blow up the system in order to prevent anyone else from gaining power. That really isn't anarchy: anarchy is about radical liberation. What the despicables in the GOP want is the opposite of that.
And the American Revolution was at least in part perhaps an attempt by off-shoots of that same English Aristocracy to remove parliamentary controls on their practically absolute power leading directly to the plantation philosophy usurping the Union and driving cesession.
Washington was dead set against political parties but he did embrace the idea of loyal opposition (unlike John Adams, who was a little more insecure, I think). The plantation system was an invention of the Jacobean period: the Ulster Plantation was established officially in 1609 and it served as the model for all the others in the colonialist and settler colonialist program of the Stuart kings, including the forced labor of people designated as "other"--in the case of Ulster, Irish Catholics. I always am frustrated by the adulation given to people like Jefferson and Madison because they absolutely embraced the plantation idea, but they also embraced the power-brokering system of the English parliamentary parties. So they backslid a lot, in my opinion.
It's fascinating to trace historical changes in the usage of words like "plantation" and "factory." Their original meanings differ from current usage. When I take students on Boston's Black Heritage Trail, they learn that "avenue" and "tunnel" aren't always what we think.
And many of the imported and then exported Ulster Irishmen came from the English/Scots borderland; a rough and ready population much used to taking the law into their own hands...with 25% coming from Northumberland wence came I!
Thanks for elaborating on the earlier sketch, Prof M. I'm not very familiar with the standing of Pincus's work. I quarried from his book, but disagree that the GR was the first modern revolution. That distinction came only with the 18-19C Atlantic Revolutions (Amer, France, Haiti, Span Amer).
To fully understand American history, it's necessary to look beyond America. Along with transnational concepts like the Atl Revs, English history is highly instructive, especially the periods (11, 12, 17, 19Cs) when major progressive and modernizing reforms occurred.
Nice reading list! :-) I would add another one, Ted McCormick, who wrote a brilliant book on William Petty (the 17th-c inventor of "political arithmetic" which some consider the earliest form of modern economics) about how Petty shaped the social discourse on Otherness and navigated the political waters of the Civil War and after very cleverly. Book title is William Petty and the Ambitions of Political Arithmetic. A recent biography of Queen Anne, by Anne Somerset, spends most of the book on Anne's life before she became queen and how the political machinations of the Whigs and Tories really shaped the ways in which the Stuarts were manipulated between the Restoration and her reign. It's a very interesting perspective, as both women as historical figures and women as historians are not that well represented in historical works of this period.
Thanks for the ref, Linda. My revised view of Queen Anne started with the 2018 film "The Favourite." Her Majesty is now being freed from Whig orthodoxy, first from the Marlborough/Godolphin Whig faction that influenced her in the 1700s, then from like-minded historians (looking at you, Winston Churchill) who downgraded her significance. Her decision to seek an end to the War of the Spanish Succession was a major service to the UK.
Linda, we may have talked about different authors earlier. I cited Steve Pincus, 17C historian at U Chicago. You mentioned Steven Pinker, Harvard social psychologist? Remarkably similar names.
Whoops! You are correct. It's because Pinker recently wrote a book with the stunning claim that he (and of course only he!) was saving the "Enlightenment" from its neglect by historians (give me strength!). And I know exactly the book of which you speak (also, yesterday was one of those hair on fire days): I have read it (I chaired a book prize committee for several years and it was one of the entries, as was the McCormick book, and some 35 others every year: that was a tough gig to squeeze into my life!). All 800+ pages (urf). It's quite the tour de force but I also agree with you that he oversells his premise a bit.
Thanks for the reminder! It's one of the books that I decided to donate to my uni library because they could never afford to purchase it. And I promptly forgot about it!
In complete agreement with your 2nd paragraph. Your description of Republicans turning into reactionaries and autocrats (in reaction to the democratic egalitarian society) is excellent. Linda we are having a small quibble about terms but certainly agree completely in principle. I used the word "anarchy" but you are correct, they are turning into autocrats. Autocrats ignore the structure in place, they just do as they please, that's my use of the word "anarchy" just as Putin is an autocrat who cares not at all about the "hierarchy" underneath him (if you ignore or roll over or throw a grenade into the "-archy" I am using the word "anarchy" for that behavior), he just abuses it.
Roland I totally understand that use of the word "anarchy;" it's just that I really like a lot of the early anarchist theory (from the late 18th and early 19th c) so I tend to think of them more fondly, since they could safely be called anti-fascist (at least until Robespierre and his crew appropriated anarchist ideas). :-)
Yes, Linda, I figured that out, that you have a favorable association with the word. I generated a use of the word "anarchy" devoid of historical context, with the meaning of "institutional destruction." I think we understand each other.
The first step is to keep the disloyals in opposition, i.e. out of power in Congress and the WH.
I haven't kept close watch on the corporations that recoiled in horror from the insurrection. After Jan 6 there were multiple lists of which corps had changed policy about donor practices. No doubt many are laying low to see which way things go. The loyal/business GOP won't have much clout if companies quietly resume funding the Sedition Caucus a few weeks or months from now.
There was an article in the WaPo regarding a contingent of shareholders of JP Morgan Chase wanting more transpareny in its political/charitable giving. James Dimon, CEO, is fighting that. So it feels like they're not really holding back with donations.
And with what I'm reading in Dark Money, the way the billionaires set up foundations to hide their contributions to politicians and talking heads, I'm sceptical that it's really happening.
I am finally watching, Hulu's "The Handmaid's Tale". The takeover by a group of organized men with a police force and religious zealotry behind them was able to shatter life. It's "just" a movie, but the similarities are profound and the dangers more real every day. It forces me to reconsider the Margaret Mead quote in a different light. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has."
I love the MM quote. But is it out of context in this argument? The entire world is becoming more diverse and less racist-sexist-homophobic all the time. The Trump Republic throwback racist society is declining, not growing. They keep coming back, it is true, to try to return us to the society of the past, but now they are becoming desperate as the world approaches the point-of-no-return. We may already have passed that point.
Roland, in my perusal of the news I would say you are wrong-ish. The right is becoming the prime mover in world politics ( https://qz.com/1774201/the-global-state-of-right-wing-populism-in-2019/ ) and the US Republican state governments are seriously legislating away voter rights. The GOP controls 27 state governorships, 30 state legislatures, and 23 state government trifectas (governorship and both legislative chambers). Most of the world denies, or at best, is unable to confront rapid climate change. And the US is unable to even address healthcare reform or serious campaign finance reform. I could go on, like the infrastructure and under-funding of schools, but I think we may just agree to disagree. Clearly, you are more optimistic than I.
Glad you read it! I also read it many years ago and found it so disturbing that it has stayed with me since. I meant no disrespect, it’s just that many who have seen the show have not read the book and I think the book is very important for a fuller understanding of the story.
The book was so disturbing, I decided not to watch the series. I use my viewing time to laugh as much as possible. I can't even watch animal rescue videos on YouTube because the before parts make me too despairing. Sticking to only reading about horrible things rather than watching them gives my sanity a longer lease.
I totally understand! Images stay with me too. I call sitcoms, game shows, and happy movies my palatte cleansers. The Great British Baking Show is a good one for that purpose.
I'm sorry, perhaps I missed something. How can a party already a "haven for racists" be ruined by anarchists? How do you define "ruin"? Should we even care if a GOP dominated by racists since since 1981 (arguably since the mid sixties) is ruined? A GOP unable to repudiate both its racists and its anarchists is a party I will never vote for, nor should anyone who is not a racist or potential anarchist. IMHO...
I could care less what happens to the GOP. I think that might be TPJ's concern, but it certainly isn't mine. By "anarchy" I mean grenade throwers, people who want to destroy the system because the system, the current society, is not allowing them to retain the racist hegemony of old. The old racist society is dying, so now they want to attack democracy itself in order to retain that old white male system of power. They are desperate. They are dying out. They are disintegrating. Should we be concerned? HELL no. I'm with you there.
The GOP's woes mean little to me apart from preventing its worst elements from destroying America. The more disorganized the GOP is, the better. But there must be room for different institutions to present a range of responsible policy ideas and options. That includes a true labor party that represents workers more than business. The Dems at their best perform that role rather imperfectly.
I disapprove of calling the GOP insurgency "anarchist." That reflects poor comprehension of anarchism, a discrete, coherent political philosophy, not "merely" social and political chaos. They are more properly nihilists, though nihilism itself is a political philosophy, though less coherent. (That's out of my depth, sorry.)
Agree we could use a true Labor Party. Agree the more disorganized the GOP, the better. Agree with the entire 1st paragraph.
Ok, forget anarchists. Forget nihilists. Those terms carry all that historical baggage and meaning. Too many scholars on this forum for me to just reuse an old word in a new way. Institutional destruction. Autocracy. Plutocracy, if you will, although the Jan. 6 Rioters were basically working class racists: nevertheless, the American plutocracy is working hard to keep the old (racist, sexist) social order intact. But the common thread is the old order society deciding to attack the institutions of U.S. society which are preventing them from keeping their old order going. They are relentless. They are dogged. They are completely devoted to their cause. They will stop at nothing, even if it means attacking the Capitol and Congress. I don't think anarchist is a terrible word to describe racists like Trump who place racist society ahead of our democratic institutions, and who are willing to damage and destroy any institution in their way. But if Linda and you have positive associations with "anarchist," or pre-existing historical associations with that word, then of course there needs to be a better word. What do you call it when a group of people (our racist society adherents, Republicans) decide to attack, and if needs be destroy, any social institution in the way of getting what they want, which in this case is the everlasting racist society of their dreams, the perpetual Trump presidency?
"I don’t think your loyal opposition has disappeared, I think it has been left homeless." I agree. Sure hope they find a home in time for 2022 elections, to diliute the trumpist vote.
For decades my mother was dedicated to the LWV ( also NAACP), first in CT then in WA. Gawd, she was a thorn in the side of benighted opponents. Good trouble!
I enjoy reading Tom Nichols and following him on Twitter. Former Republican. One of his articles above. He writes for many periodicals and has a new book out now. His Twitter discussions and arguments are educational. He is similar to HCR in educating his followers in a historical way and she often retweets him.
His bio:
Tom Nichols is a U.S. Naval War College University Professor, and an adjunct at the U.S. Air Force School of Strategic Force Studies and the Harvard Extension School. He is a specialist on Russian affairs, nuclear strategy, NATO issues, and a nationally-known commentator on U.S. politics and national security. He was a staff member in the United States Senate, a fellow at CSIS and the Harvard Kennedy School, and previously taught at Dartmouth, La Salle, and Georgetown. He is also a five-time undefeated 'Jeopardy!' champion, and was noted in the 'Jeopardy!' Hall of Fame after his 1994 appearances as one of the all-time best players of the game.
Maybe the best of the loyal opposition leave the opposing side and cross over. Which creates more room for disloyals—hence the necessity for guardrails and measures of insurrection prevention.
Without that agreement there is nolonger an assured process of peaceful transition of power and garranttee tof the primacy of election results: democracy ceases to exist and power is attained, maintained or destroyed by violence. Sooner or later the people leading this insurrection have to be put out of harm's way before they take out the "unwanted majority" and do away with the democratic system.
That’s why I’m still pretty optimistic that the educated citizens of our country and the less deluded followers of DDT’s circus will have four years of thoughtful Bidenesque measures maybe including the $15 minimum wage to settle things down. So much of the insurrection has been fueled too by the unregulated social media Titans and now that is also going to change. We’re still a very great and strong country.
The Republican Party has consistently provided "DISLOYAL OPPOSITION" to lawful American Democracy since 1964. Since that date, the word "loyal" applied to the GOP has been as patently ridiculous as applying the word to describe the CSA. The terrible irony is that what we have today is a Democratic Party with its main "root" in the party of Abraham Lincoln and a Republican Party with its main "root" in the party of Andrew Johnson and Robert E. Lee. Unfortunately, it is becoming clearer every day that the Republican "roots" are winning the evolutionary war for survival ... a political Kudzu, spread to all 50 states and growing like, well, ah, let me think of the perfect word .... oh, yeah, Kudzu.
Both sides in the Civil War deployed much the same language and political traditions, from the Amer Rev and early republic, to advance their respective causes. The same is true now. Like the Jan 6 insurgents, I want to take back our country. But it must be taken back from them and their ilk, and reconstructed in "a more perfect Union" to ensure that all, created equal, enjoy the blessings of liberty equally.
I began and continue as an Africanist, also studying global environmental and disease history. Then in the 21C I transitioned to world history, globalization, antislavery, and more recently the US Civil War. Teaching and writing world history requires reducing my ignorance in numerous areas. It is an endless task, and that's a good thing.
Reducing your ignorance? Who do you think you are?!! What an absurd.... Oh, wait, sorry, Trump's not president anymore. One doesn't have to hide their pursuit of knowledge. Jeez, for a moment there my mind was boggled!!
Have you read "Battle Cry of Freedom" by Dr James McPherson? It gives one a much clearer understanding of the situation during the Civil War by discussing the political, social, and economics prior to the CW time frame.
Excellent rec, Barbara. It's still the best 1-vol CW history, though I wish JM would revise and update it. Tons of new studies have come out since it first appeared in 1988.
How is the Conservative Party and the Labour Party codified in the UK? And how is that 2 party system different from Republican and Democratic Parties in the US? What would a codified loyal opposition look like in the US?
Codifying loyal opposition in the US would, at the least, have to prevent conspiring and attempting a coup to overthrow the government. Both Charles I (1629) and Oliver Cromwell (1653) mounted successful coups against their Parliaments. A large chunk of British politics since then has sought successfully to guard against such unrestrained executive power. Jan 6 exposed a major flaw in America's political system, and summoned the awesome ghosts of tyrants past.
I believe that the law in the UK is more explicit in detailing the privileges and duties of parties in and out of office, and not just the big 2. For instance, the main UK opposition party always has a "shadow cabinet," but is not guilty of seditious conspiracy. Sorry, can't be more certain than that on contemporary practice. But the Glorious Revolution established the primacy of Parliament (legislature) over the monarchy (executive), and also produced the world's first Bill of Rights. I've always thought that was rather glorious.
TPJ, elsewhere here you wrote, “The first step is to keep the disloyals in opposition, i.e. out of power in Congress and the WH.”
From all the cracks that Trump and his advisors exploited in the executive branch, and the trajectory from Gingrich’s brainwashing lessons in Republican rhetoric and propaganda to McConnell’s stranglehold in Congress, we see the cracks that need to be filled in those domains.
Codify as by having laws that require things such as:
1. Full disclosure of a candidate’s financial records?
2. Passing a test on basic civics and the Constitution?
3. Basic critical thinking skills?
4. Keeping dark money out of politics?
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” So also implement such requirements to hold an office at the state and local levels?
Prevention lies in the vote, which has been manipulated by voter suppression tactics and laws in addition to disinformation campaigns. (Support HR1 For the People Act!). The ultimate prevention lies in education—growing critical thinking skills and civic knowledge in our young people.
What specific guardrails do we need in place to identify and screen out disloyals and insurrectionists?
“For the People Act is a bill first introduced and passed in the United States House of Representatives in 2019 to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders.”
An excellent list and good starting point, Ellie. Additionally, the excremental Trumpsky admin convinced me that either holding public office, or military service, should be a legal requirement before serving as president.
And a Civics exam, a geography exam, taxes for the past ten years, diplomatic skills, literate, and doesn't lie or grab women by their private parts would be a better beginning. Can we put that in their job description? Oh, since we are close to having women as presidents, we can include no grabbing men or thems by their private parts!
The situation between the parties after elections is not necessarily codified by specific texts of law but by the concept of "Common Law" which is effectively mostly historic precedent and tradition....which the courts will interpret and enforce.
If it came down to it the Queen constitutionally has the power to dissolve parliament and name who she likes as Prime Minister.....but she doesn't and no monarch has done it since the 18th C. As the English would say "It is just not done, my good chap!"
Named spokespersons in the main opposition party who "shadow" their opposite number in the real cabinet. Their role is essentially to track the opposite number and criticize what he says and does.....and thereafter help the opposition to develop policy in the area when the wheel turns and it is their turn.
"The Shadow Cabinet is the team of senior spokespeople chosen by the Leader of the Opposition to mirror the Cabinet in Government. Each member of the shadow cabinet is appointed to lead on a specific policy area for their party and to question and challenge their counterpart in the Cabinet. In this way the Official Opposition seeks to present itself as an alternative government-in-waiting."
So the shadow cabinet is engaging in critical thinking and debate, examining the alternate hypothesis, and elevating the discourse on policy issues. In all the covert schemes and wheeling-dealing for power that operate universally, how is that shadow cabinet tradition in the UK not eroded to subsume policy to obstruction? The way Republicans have since Gingrich.
The US is not alone in nolonger having a "codified loyal opposition" as in Germany the 2 main parties are in coalition government leaving the AfD, the ultra-far right as the opposition....not perhaps so loyal!
In the UK there is not just Two parties as although not hugely significant there is the Liberal Party too.....the 1çthC party of Gladstone and the turn of the century party of Lloyd George. You also have a large Scottish National Part contingent who, while voting with the opposition are independistas...not so loyal at that! I think also that thre is a Welsh Party member and half a dozen IRA members (who do not come to London) who are most certainly not loyal to other than a united Ireland. Over and above that the Labour Party and the Conservatives so dominate and accept election results that the transfer of power is well codified by tradition and the neutrality of the the Queen and the civil service
I am sure all members of Congress think of themselves as loyal to the constitution because they tried to work within its rules and those rules do not prohibit lying to the public. It was Trump who tried to get Pence to break the rules. What disturbs me is the ease in which a disloyal mob was created. This could happen again and under the leadership of someone more competent than Trump. Our system of public discourse could use improvement. Looking for answers I am currently reading "Empowering Public Wisdom" by Tom Atlee. Perhaps I'll write about it when I'm done. In the meantime my current thinking is at
Intentional lying should be grounds for removal from office due to violating one's oath to the office. We are the employers and should demand admirable behavior from our elected officials.
A laudable rule but to enforce we'd probably need to bring the courts into congressional debates? I am finding it comforting that there are starting to be civil lawsuits with the potential for real punitive damages for lies told in the last election. That will make would-be liars more cautious in the future without messing with separation of powers.
Good comparison, Lynn; that's what it feels like now. After Jan 6 I finally felt that I could grasp the mentality of the North when it rose up to defend the Union, democracy, and ultimately to expand American freedom.
America is in danger of losing something very important in politics: the concept of a Loyal Opposition. It ensures continuity from one administration to another, particularly through the peaceful transfer of power. Also central is the notion that minority parties can legitimately criticize, even oppose, the government without automatically committing treason or a crime. The origins lie in late 17C England after the "Glorious" Revolution of 1688, as the country moved from the turmoil of the Stuart era into the more stable and prosperous 18C. It actually predates democracy, first functioning to moderate conflict between Court (royal) and Country (parliamentary) aristocratic factions. Gradually it extended to party rivalries and ultimately all kinds of representative government.
Loyal opposition may be codified as in the UK and other Commonwealth countries, or have more the status of tradition as in the US. It can serve as a needed check on government authority, but also to prevent government from exercising any authority. That latter weakness, as exploited by the GOP, is now destabilizing the country in dangerous and unpredictable ways. When the opposition won't accept election results, allow peaceful power transfer, or renounce violence as an instrument of policy, its disloyalty threatens the entire foundation of the nation's political system. In 1861 Lincoln expressed its essence: "We must settle this question now -- whether in a free government the minority have the right to break it up whenever they choose. If we fail, it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves." It is essential to know what's at risk before it is gone forever.
(Written mostly from memory, so pardon any errors)
S Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution
J Plumb, The Growth of Political Stability in England
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/essay/the-loyal-opposition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_opposition
Hmm. I would rephrase the context. It’s true that the Republican party has turned to extremism. In doing so, it has alienated your Loyal Opposition. The Lincoln Project. 43 for Biden. The other anti-Trump groups like those two. Joe Scarborough, Jennifer Rubin, Nicole Wallace, George Will, et al. The thousands or maybe tens of thousands of Republicans who have left the party since January 6. Larry Hogan. Mitt Romney. Liz Cheney. Evan McMullin’s group of Zoom conferencers. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. There are plenty of loyal oppositionists left, it’s just that they’ve been disenfranchised. Now they’re without a party, they’re on their own for the time being.
I don’t think your loyal opposition has disappeared, I think it has been left homeless.
“That latter weakness, as exploited by the GOP, is now destabilizing the country in dangerous and unpredictable ways.”
True. However, notice the backlash. The extremists were being ignored, pretty much, probably dismissed as inconsequential. Now, since Jan. 6, they are being criminalized.
The funding sources for the GOP are turning against the sedition caucus. That put Moscow Mitch in a bind, and he had to come down with the business community and against Trump. The fracture has already happened. Now the question is how is it going to play out. Let’s watch the show together 🍿🍿
While we’re watching the show together, I will mention another possibility: criminalization of the Republican Party itself. Notice that the Proud Boys are now a designated terrorist organization in Canada. That’s not really a good sign for them, or for the other participants in the January 6 Riot. If QAnon and Proud Boys et al as organizations begin to get viewed that way here, it could stain the party irrevocably. If their reputation becomes too badly smeared, alternatively it could allow the loyal opposition to reclaim what was once theirs. The R Party was all my life a haven for racists like Reagan, but not for anarchists. It’s the anarchists, like the sedition senators and House members, that are ruining this Party.
Should we be distressed about that? You may be. I’m not. The loyal oppositionists will find a way to regroup.
I’m not worried. It’ll sort itself out. I think your loyal opposition is alive and well, I just think they are like an army and retreat. Disorganized, demoralized. But they will rally eventually.
TPJ and Roland--you're both right, in my opinion (although full disclosure: I am totally not a fan of Pinker, who is not an historian but plays one on TV, which is the problem; see the issue of Historical Reflections I saw through publication as my last job as senior editor for the historians' view--The Pinker Thesis). The concept of the Loyal Opposition in British parliamentary politics is one that developed gradually, as did the concept of political parties; it certainly was not part of the system when "parliament" was invented in the 13th century, when it was used as both a rubber stamp for raising money by the Crown and as a brake on royal overreach. By the late 18th century, the calcification of the parliamentary system into one that was managed by political parties (which happened more during the reigns of Anne and George I than as a result of the "Whigs" in 1688--they were not the organized party they became 50 years later) had embedded in it a notion of loyal opposition because the people running the show might differ on the methods used, but they were a homogeneous bunch of elite white men who agreed that the maintenance of power among the white (non-Irish) elite was the most important thing, especially in response to the French Revolution.
The Republicans have served as the maintainer of the notion of elite whiteness being the most important criterion for political power for a very long time (and yes: I find that ironic). As long as the Dems when in power present a similar front and don't rock the boat re: whiteness, maleness, and elite status, they have operated more or less as a "loyal" opposition. But when the Dems actually embrace the "big tent" ideology of the party and start to push against the lack of inclusion and try to be more equitable in its distribution of power and authority, the Republicans turn into reactionaries and autocrats (which I think is more accurate than anarchists): people who want to blow up the system in order to prevent anyone else from gaining power. That really isn't anarchy: anarchy is about radical liberation. What the despicables in the GOP want is the opposite of that.
And the American Revolution was at least in part perhaps an attempt by off-shoots of that same English Aristocracy to remove parliamentary controls on their practically absolute power leading directly to the plantation philosophy usurping the Union and driving cesession.
Washington was dead set against political parties but he did embrace the idea of loyal opposition (unlike John Adams, who was a little more insecure, I think). The plantation system was an invention of the Jacobean period: the Ulster Plantation was established officially in 1609 and it served as the model for all the others in the colonialist and settler colonialist program of the Stuart kings, including the forced labor of people designated as "other"--in the case of Ulster, Irish Catholics. I always am frustrated by the adulation given to people like Jefferson and Madison because they absolutely embraced the plantation idea, but they also embraced the power-brokering system of the English parliamentary parties. So they backslid a lot, in my opinion.
It's fascinating to trace historical changes in the usage of words like "plantation" and "factory." Their original meanings differ from current usage. When I take students on Boston's Black Heritage Trail, they learn that "avenue" and "tunnel" aren't always what we think.
If I ever get to travel again, I am coming to Boston for that tour!!
And many of the imported and then exported Ulster Irishmen came from the English/Scots borderland; a rough and ready population much used to taking the law into their own hands...with 25% coming from Northumberland wence came I!
Oh Stuart, I always suspected you were a Geordie . . .
Thanks for the study, TPJ and Linda and Stuart, y'all are much more knowledgeable about the history than I am.
Thanks for elaborating on the earlier sketch, Prof M. I'm not very familiar with the standing of Pincus's work. I quarried from his book, but disagree that the GR was the first modern revolution. That distinction came only with the 18-19C Atlantic Revolutions (Amer, France, Haiti, Span Amer).
To fully understand American history, it's necessary to look beyond America. Along with transnational concepts like the Atl Revs, English history is highly instructive, especially the periods (11, 12, 17, 19Cs) when major progressive and modernizing reforms occurred.
C Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World
L Langley, The Americas in the Age of Revolution
R Strayer, Ways of the World, vol 2
Nice reading list! :-) I would add another one, Ted McCormick, who wrote a brilliant book on William Petty (the 17th-c inventor of "political arithmetic" which some consider the earliest form of modern economics) about how Petty shaped the social discourse on Otherness and navigated the political waters of the Civil War and after very cleverly. Book title is William Petty and the Ambitions of Political Arithmetic. A recent biography of Queen Anne, by Anne Somerset, spends most of the book on Anne's life before she became queen and how the political machinations of the Whigs and Tories really shaped the ways in which the Stuarts were manipulated between the Restoration and her reign. It's a very interesting perspective, as both women as historical figures and women as historians are not that well represented in historical works of this period.
Thanks for the ref, Linda. My revised view of Queen Anne started with the 2018 film "The Favourite." Her Majesty is now being freed from Whig orthodoxy, first from the Marlborough/Godolphin Whig faction that influenced her in the 1700s, then from like-minded historians (looking at you, Winston Churchill) who downgraded her significance. Her decision to seek an end to the War of the Spanish Succession was a major service to the UK.
Linda, we may have talked about different authors earlier. I cited Steve Pincus, 17C historian at U Chicago. You mentioned Steven Pinker, Harvard social psychologist? Remarkably similar names.
Whoops! You are correct. It's because Pinker recently wrote a book with the stunning claim that he (and of course only he!) was saving the "Enlightenment" from its neglect by historians (give me strength!). And I know exactly the book of which you speak (also, yesterday was one of those hair on fire days): I have read it (I chaired a book prize committee for several years and it was one of the entries, as was the McCormick book, and some 35 others every year: that was a tough gig to squeeze into my life!). All 800+ pages (urf). It's quite the tour de force but I also agree with you that he oversells his premise a bit.
Thanks for the reminder! It's one of the books that I decided to donate to my uni library because they could never afford to purchase it. And I promptly forgot about it!
In complete agreement with your 2nd paragraph. Your description of Republicans turning into reactionaries and autocrats (in reaction to the democratic egalitarian society) is excellent. Linda we are having a small quibble about terms but certainly agree completely in principle. I used the word "anarchy" but you are correct, they are turning into autocrats. Autocrats ignore the structure in place, they just do as they please, that's my use of the word "anarchy" just as Putin is an autocrat who cares not at all about the "hierarchy" underneath him (if you ignore or roll over or throw a grenade into the "-archy" I am using the word "anarchy" for that behavior), he just abuses it.
Roland I totally understand that use of the word "anarchy;" it's just that I really like a lot of the early anarchist theory (from the late 18th and early 19th c) so I tend to think of them more fondly, since they could safely be called anti-fascist (at least until Robespierre and his crew appropriated anarchist ideas). :-)
Yes, Linda, I figured that out, that you have a favorable association with the word. I generated a use of the word "anarchy" devoid of historical context, with the meaning of "institutional destruction." I think we understand each other.
Brilliant!
The first step is to keep the disloyals in opposition, i.e. out of power in Congress and the WH.
I haven't kept close watch on the corporations that recoiled in horror from the insurrection. After Jan 6 there were multiple lists of which corps had changed policy about donor practices. No doubt many are laying low to see which way things go. The loyal/business GOP won't have much clout if companies quietly resume funding the Sedition Caucus a few weeks or months from now.
You have to stop them running the states too so that you can amend the constitution if necessary.
There was an article in the WaPo regarding a contingent of shareholders of JP Morgan Chase wanting more transpareny in its political/charitable giving. James Dimon, CEO, is fighting that. So it feels like they're not really holding back with donations.
And with what I'm reading in Dark Money, the way the billionaires set up foundations to hide their contributions to politicians and talking heads, I'm sceptical that it's really happening.
I am finally watching, Hulu's "The Handmaid's Tale". The takeover by a group of organized men with a police force and religious zealotry behind them was able to shatter life. It's "just" a movie, but the similarities are profound and the dangers more real every day. It forces me to reconsider the Margaret Mead quote in a different light. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has."
I love the MM quote. But is it out of context in this argument? The entire world is becoming more diverse and less racist-sexist-homophobic all the time. The Trump Republic throwback racist society is declining, not growing. They keep coming back, it is true, to try to return us to the society of the past, but now they are becoming desperate as the world approaches the point-of-no-return. We may already have passed that point.
Roland, in my perusal of the news I would say you are wrong-ish. The right is becoming the prime mover in world politics ( https://qz.com/1774201/the-global-state-of-right-wing-populism-in-2019/ ) and the US Republican state governments are seriously legislating away voter rights. The GOP controls 27 state governorships, 30 state legislatures, and 23 state government trifectas (governorship and both legislative chambers). Most of the world denies, or at best, is unable to confront rapid climate change. And the US is unable to even address healthcare reform or serious campaign finance reform. I could go on, like the infrastructure and under-funding of schools, but I think we may just agree to disagree. Clearly, you are more optimistic than I.
Read the book by Margaret Atwood on which it is based.
I have. Twice.
I read the book and watched the TV show and both frighteneed me. It was around 2015 when I read the book and it was too prophetic for my comfort.
Glad you read it! I also read it many years ago and found it so disturbing that it has stayed with me since. I meant no disrespect, it’s just that many who have seen the show have not read the book and I think the book is very important for a fuller understanding of the story.
The book was so disturbing, I decided not to watch the series. I use my viewing time to laugh as much as possible. I can't even watch animal rescue videos on YouTube because the before parts make me too despairing. Sticking to only reading about horrible things rather than watching them gives my sanity a longer lease.
I totally understand! Images stay with me too. I call sitcoms, game shows, and happy movies my palatte cleansers. The Great British Baking Show is a good one for that purpose.
I agree. Have you read her follow up book? I bought it but haven't had the heart to start it yet.
The sequel should be very interesting, "The Testaments". I just ordered it. Be brave!
I'm sorry, perhaps I missed something. How can a party already a "haven for racists" be ruined by anarchists? How do you define "ruin"? Should we even care if a GOP dominated by racists since since 1981 (arguably since the mid sixties) is ruined? A GOP unable to repudiate both its racists and its anarchists is a party I will never vote for, nor should anyone who is not a racist or potential anarchist. IMHO...
I could care less what happens to the GOP. I think that might be TPJ's concern, but it certainly isn't mine. By "anarchy" I mean grenade throwers, people who want to destroy the system because the system, the current society, is not allowing them to retain the racist hegemony of old. The old racist society is dying, so now they want to attack democracy itself in order to retain that old white male system of power. They are desperate. They are dying out. They are disintegrating. Should we be concerned? HELL no. I'm with you there.
The GOP's woes mean little to me apart from preventing its worst elements from destroying America. The more disorganized the GOP is, the better. But there must be room for different institutions to present a range of responsible policy ideas and options. That includes a true labor party that represents workers more than business. The Dems at their best perform that role rather imperfectly.
I disapprove of calling the GOP insurgency "anarchist." That reflects poor comprehension of anarchism, a discrete, coherent political philosophy, not "merely" social and political chaos. They are more properly nihilists, though nihilism itself is a political philosophy, though less coherent. (That's out of my depth, sorry.)
Agree we could use a true Labor Party. Agree the more disorganized the GOP, the better. Agree with the entire 1st paragraph.
Ok, forget anarchists. Forget nihilists. Those terms carry all that historical baggage and meaning. Too many scholars on this forum for me to just reuse an old word in a new way. Institutional destruction. Autocracy. Plutocracy, if you will, although the Jan. 6 Rioters were basically working class racists: nevertheless, the American plutocracy is working hard to keep the old (racist, sexist) social order intact. But the common thread is the old order society deciding to attack the institutions of U.S. society which are preventing them from keeping their old order going. They are relentless. They are dogged. They are completely devoted to their cause. They will stop at nothing, even if it means attacking the Capitol and Congress. I don't think anarchist is a terrible word to describe racists like Trump who place racist society ahead of our democratic institutions, and who are willing to damage and destroy any institution in their way. But if Linda and you have positive associations with "anarchist," or pre-existing historical associations with that word, then of course there needs to be a better word. What do you call it when a group of people (our racist society adherents, Republicans) decide to attack, and if needs be destroy, any social institution in the way of getting what they want, which in this case is the everlasting racist society of their dreams, the perpetual Trump presidency?
Maybe a new word like "assinism:" the philosophy and practice of being an [expletive deleted] in politics.
"I don’t think your loyal opposition has disappeared, I think it has been left homeless." I agree. Sure hope they find a home in time for 2022 elections, to diliute the trumpist vote.
MaryPat, In case you are interested in supporting HR1, here's a link to the League of Women Voters for the US:
https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/lwvus-supports-return-hr-1-117th-congress
Used to be hooked up with local LWV. The Best.
For decades my mother was dedicated to the LWV ( also NAACP), first in CT then in WA. Gawd, she was a thorn in the side of benighted opponents. Good trouble!
THANK YOU!
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/trump-destroyed-most-important-virtue-america/617727/
I enjoy reading Tom Nichols and following him on Twitter. Former Republican. One of his articles above. He writes for many periodicals and has a new book out now. His Twitter discussions and arguments are educational. He is similar to HCR in educating his followers in a historical way and she often retweets him.
His bio:
Tom Nichols is a U.S. Naval War College University Professor, and an adjunct at the U.S. Air Force School of Strategic Force Studies and the Harvard Extension School. He is a specialist on Russian affairs, nuclear strategy, NATO issues, and a nationally-known commentator on U.S. politics and national security. He was a staff member in the United States Senate, a fellow at CSIS and the Harvard Kennedy School, and previously taught at Dartmouth, La Salle, and Georgetown. He is also a five-time undefeated 'Jeopardy!' champion, and was noted in the 'Jeopardy!' Hall of Fame after his 1994 appearances as one of the all-time best players of the game.
His Twitter account is pretty great, too.
yes it is!
Yes I follow him on Twitter also.
Maybe the best of the loyal opposition leave the opposing side and cross over. Which creates more room for disloyals—hence the necessity for guardrails and measures of insurrection prevention.
Thank you for this Kimberley. So right on.
You are welcome, Mary Pat! Have a lovely everning!
Oh roland. You're telling us to enjoy the ride, not the destination? OK, yes.
Precisely.
I want to believe that you are right, so I am going to!
Me too.
Works for me!
Without that agreement there is nolonger an assured process of peaceful transition of power and garranttee tof the primacy of election results: democracy ceases to exist and power is attained, maintained or destroyed by violence. Sooner or later the people leading this insurrection have to be put out of harm's way before they take out the "unwanted majority" and do away with the democratic system.
That’s why I’m still pretty optimistic that the educated citizens of our country and the less deluded followers of DDT’s circus will have four years of thoughtful Bidenesque measures maybe including the $15 minimum wage to settle things down. So much of the insurrection has been fueled too by the unregulated social media Titans and now that is also going to change. We’re still a very great and strong country.
Hi Stuart! Now it’s my turn to go to sleep. I’m not working tonight it’s my weekend. I should already be in bed. A demain. 🥂
Sleep well Roland. Manchin just okayed Haaland's nomination.
🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉🎊🎉🎉🎉
I hope you’re right, because I’m going to bed happy based on your report.
On Politico!
Whew.
Ms Haaland may be THE most significant Biden nomination. She literally embodies both the new America and the Oldest Americans.
I'm not yet tired of this kind of winning.
Really!?! Best news of the day! Sweet dreams Roland!
Manchin can do better.
“Should” do better!
How about MUST do better or off with his head
He can and maybe he will.
I have a link that I hope I can post... very interesting ... https://www.facebook.com/1256768517/posts/10220079378235525/?d=n
It must be set as friends only rather than a public post, as not available.
I hope you folks read this...?
Great news.
The Republican Party has consistently provided "DISLOYAL OPPOSITION" to lawful American Democracy since 1964. Since that date, the word "loyal" applied to the GOP has been as patently ridiculous as applying the word to describe the CSA. The terrible irony is that what we have today is a Democratic Party with its main "root" in the party of Abraham Lincoln and a Republican Party with its main "root" in the party of Andrew Johnson and Robert E. Lee. Unfortunately, it is becoming clearer every day that the Republican "roots" are winning the evolutionary war for survival ... a political Kudzu, spread to all 50 states and growing like, well, ah, let me think of the perfect word .... oh, yeah, Kudzu.
Both sides in the Civil War deployed much the same language and political traditions, from the Amer Rev and early republic, to advance their respective causes. The same is true now. Like the Jan 6 insurgents, I want to take back our country. But it must be taken back from them and their ilk, and reconstructed in "a more perfect Union" to ensure that all, created equal, enjoy the blessings of liberty equally.
Damn good memory.
Thanks Scott. My memory's good when I remember, not when I forget.
It's just sometimes that the whole memory takes a short break!
Hey I’m looking into prevalent when I can remember to think about it.
You are all corr .... Wait, what were we discussing??
Just joking around about memory.
There you go again! Razor sharp.
PS - what area of history do you teach/study?
I began and continue as an Africanist, also studying global environmental and disease history. Then in the 21C I transitioned to world history, globalization, antislavery, and more recently the US Civil War. Teaching and writing world history requires reducing my ignorance in numerous areas. It is an endless task, and that's a good thing.
Reducing your ignorance? Who do you think you are?!! What an absurd.... Oh, wait, sorry, Trump's not president anymore. One doesn't have to hide their pursuit of knowledge. Jeez, for a moment there my mind was boggled!!
Have you read "Battle Cry of Freedom" by Dr James McPherson? It gives one a much clearer understanding of the situation during the Civil War by discussing the political, social, and economics prior to the CW time frame.
Excellent rec, Barbara. It's still the best 1-vol CW history, though I wish JM would revise and update it. Tons of new studies have come out since it first appeared in 1988.
How is the Conservative Party and the Labour Party codified in the UK? And how is that 2 party system different from Republican and Democratic Parties in the US? What would a codified loyal opposition look like in the US?
Codifying loyal opposition in the US would, at the least, have to prevent conspiring and attempting a coup to overthrow the government. Both Charles I (1629) and Oliver Cromwell (1653) mounted successful coups against their Parliaments. A large chunk of British politics since then has sought successfully to guard against such unrestrained executive power. Jan 6 exposed a major flaw in America's political system, and summoned the awesome ghosts of tyrants past.
I believe that the law in the UK is more explicit in detailing the privileges and duties of parties in and out of office, and not just the big 2. For instance, the main UK opposition party always has a "shadow cabinet," but is not guilty of seditious conspiracy. Sorry, can't be more certain than that on contemporary practice. But the Glorious Revolution established the primacy of Parliament (legislature) over the monarchy (executive), and also produced the world's first Bill of Rights. I've always thought that was rather glorious.
TPJ, elsewhere here you wrote, “The first step is to keep the disloyals in opposition, i.e. out of power in Congress and the WH.”
From all the cracks that Trump and his advisors exploited in the executive branch, and the trajectory from Gingrich’s brainwashing lessons in Republican rhetoric and propaganda to McConnell’s stranglehold in Congress, we see the cracks that need to be filled in those domains.
Codify as by having laws that require things such as:
1. Full disclosure of a candidate’s financial records?
2. Passing a test on basic civics and the Constitution?
3. Basic critical thinking skills?
4. Keeping dark money out of politics?
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” So also implement such requirements to hold an office at the state and local levels?
Prevention lies in the vote, which has been manipulated by voter suppression tactics and laws in addition to disinformation campaigns. (Support HR1 For the People Act!). The ultimate prevention lies in education—growing critical thinking skills and civic knowledge in our young people.
What specific guardrails do we need in place to identify and screen out disloyals and insurrectionists?
“For the People Act is a bill first introduced and passed in the United States House of Representatives in 2019 to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act
An excellent list and good starting point, Ellie. Additionally, the excremental Trumpsky admin convinced me that either holding public office, or military service, should be a legal requirement before serving as president.
I also think a psychiatric exam would be useful.
And a Civics exam, a geography exam, taxes for the past ten years, diplomatic skills, literate, and doesn't lie or grab women by their private parts would be a better beginning. Can we put that in their job description? Oh, since we are close to having women as presidents, we can include no grabbing men or thems by their private parts!
Yes to psych exams, with a high pass required.
Wow!! I LOVE these History Lessons!!🤔😊
The situation between the parties after elections is not necessarily codified by specific texts of law but by the concept of "Common Law" which is effectively mostly historic precedent and tradition....which the courts will interpret and enforce.
If it came down to it the Queen constitutionally has the power to dissolve parliament and name who she likes as Prime Minister.....but she doesn't and no monarch has done it since the 18th C. As the English would say "It is just not done, my good chap!"
Yes. Their ‘Constitution’ is not a written document to which they must adhere; lots of wiggle room.
What’s a “shadow cabinet”?
Named spokespersons in the main opposition party who "shadow" their opposite number in the real cabinet. Their role is essentially to track the opposite number and criticize what he says and does.....and thereafter help the opposition to develop policy in the area when the wheel turns and it is their turn.
"The Shadow Cabinet is the team of senior spokespeople chosen by the Leader of the Opposition to mirror the Cabinet in Government. Each member of the shadow cabinet is appointed to lead on a specific policy area for their party and to question and challenge their counterpart in the Cabinet. In this way the Official Opposition seeks to present itself as an alternative government-in-waiting."
https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/monographs/bateman/chapter_one.pdf
So the shadow cabinet is engaging in critical thinking and debate, examining the alternate hypothesis, and elevating the discourse on policy issues. In all the covert schemes and wheeling-dealing for power that operate universally, how is that shadow cabinet tradition in the UK not eroded to subsume policy to obstruction? The way Republicans have since Gingrich.
The US is not alone in nolonger having a "codified loyal opposition" as in Germany the 2 main parties are in coalition government leaving the AfD, the ultra-far right as the opposition....not perhaps so loyal!
In the UK there is not just Two parties as although not hugely significant there is the Liberal Party too.....the 1çthC party of Gladstone and the turn of the century party of Lloyd George. You also have a large Scottish National Part contingent who, while voting with the opposition are independistas...not so loyal at that! I think also that thre is a Welsh Party member and half a dozen IRA members (who do not come to London) who are most certainly not loyal to other than a united Ireland. Over and above that the Labour Party and the Conservatives so dominate and accept election results that the transfer of power is well codified by tradition and the neutrality of the the Queen and the civil service
It’s that “codified by tradition” part that was our Achilles heel during the Trump reign of terror.
Yes but this one dates back to Magna Carta and the Barons facing down King John!
100%
I am sure all members of Congress think of themselves as loyal to the constitution because they tried to work within its rules and those rules do not prohibit lying to the public. It was Trump who tried to get Pence to break the rules. What disturbs me is the ease in which a disloyal mob was created. This could happen again and under the leadership of someone more competent than Trump. Our system of public discourse could use improvement. Looking for answers I am currently reading "Empowering Public Wisdom" by Tom Atlee. Perhaps I'll write about it when I'm done. In the meantime my current thinking is at
https://cogitamus.substack.com/p/coup-detat-atmosphere
Those rules do not prohibit lying to the public. I propose a rule that DOES prohibit lying when in the "sacred" senate and house chambers.
Intentional lying should be grounds for removal from office due to violating one's oath to the office. We are the employers and should demand admirable behavior from our elected officials.
A laudable rule but to enforce we'd probably need to bring the courts into congressional debates? I am finding it comforting that there are starting to be civil lawsuits with the potential for real punitive damages for lies told in the last election. That will make would-be liars more cautious in the future without messing with separation of powers.
Please do write about empowering public wisdom. We all could use some.
Sure sounds like where we are. This is what it felt like to citizens paying attention pre-civil war?
Good comparison, Lynn; that's what it feels like now. After Jan 6 I finally felt that I could grasp the mentality of the North when it rose up to defend the Union, democracy, and ultimately to expand American freedom.
In danger of? I’d say it’s done and done!!