For all the Pollyannas who have been posting that we have to be nicer to the other side, I post the 43 GOP controlled legislatures currently working to undermine if not destroy the democracy that allegedly underpins this constitutional democratic republic. Anyone want to try "nice talk" with those people? In the current situation, those people are The Enemy. They have delcared war on the country, whether anyone here likes it or not. Nice talk and longings for bipartisanship don't work with wolverines.
TC, you are sometimes a bit blunt, but I always respect your opinion, and mostly agree with you. Today, I TOTALLY agree with you. I don't want to see the Democratic Party turn into a more liberal version of the Republican Party, but for now, I think the big stick needs to come out. I seriously cannot wrap my brain around how we got to another phase in our history where the "leaders" in our states are trying to take us backward into a time where prejudice is the norm and if you aren't white, you shouldn't have the same rights. Back to pretending oil will last forever and alternative energy isn't needed; a time where climate change is completely ignored, and so are killer viruses. And back to a time where lies flow like honey out of the mouths of demagogues that we have allowed to take power because it is easier to believe their BS than it is to fight for equality and the rights of all people. I really really don't want to go back there again. And I don't want my grandchildren to grow up in that poison. I agree, nice talk and longing for bipartisanship just feeds their rhetoric and the hatred that comes out of it. We can and must do better, and we are seriously running out of time.
I do not think they are trying to take us backwards in time. I think this country has never really moved on from the Civil War division. People hate “other.” It is present and fully thriving in this country.
Republican leadership has proved themselves unworthy of careful consideration or bipartisan negotiation. It’s time for Democrats to lead. Republicans can either follow or get out of the way. What we can no longer allow is their obstruction. America awaits our action; end the filibuster and get on with governing.
We also need to let our Democratic Senators and Representatives know that bipartisanship is not a high priority for us. I've written to mine (Murray, Cantwell, Larsen) at least twice now that I don't care about bipartisanship at this point; I do care about getting things done.
T: Yesterday’s Letter recounted the March to Selma. The use of a most powerful force of nonviolence. Sit-ins, disruption of economic activity, voter registration drives, etc - all set against the threats of ropes and nooses, dogs and kidnappings ...
These efforts were based on love and ‘just anger’. There was no attempt to falsely carry on "nice talk”. This movement begins within one’s heart. A moral strength lived within people who acted so courageously.
So I felt a need to clarify, for myself in this spirit of the March to Selma, that I see no need to disparage and insult another person or a group of people on this board, as I had done. I agree with you about everything you have stated about the actions of the GOP. But please do not mistake my intention to be less significant than another in our struggle.
I feel it does me, imho - no good to waste my mental energy on creating within me a life of fear, hatred and an obsession of The Enemy. Ironically, the pastor of the home church for King, Rev Raphael Warnock, is now a US Senator from Georgia! Senator Warnock has the moral force with him!
Fittingly, the man who has stayed above the political infighting, Joe Biden, now sees soaring approval ratings, as he simply makes the moral case for the survival of our democracy. Biden will be the guide for our collective march, arm-in-arm, toward a more just society. Appropriately, Biden takes the moral high ground, by starting, “I am the president for all Americans, whether you voted for me or not. I will be your president”
What a breath of clear, fresh air, after too many years of angst, hatred and dissonance! Biden’s approval proves that a kind heart gathers unknown friends and allies.
I agree that we must not become obsessed with the opposition. However, I also agree with TC's belief that the current majority in the Republican party is dangerous to this nation and its citizens - all of them, even if they haven't realized it yet. I am thrilled with President Biden, and his remaining above the fray is political genius, as well as a sign of his decency and honor. However, Biden always has a Plan B in case his staying above the fray doesn't work. I believe it translates to walking softly, but carrying a big stick.
Well, if we are going to compare Biden first to FDR, like everybody in the news is doing now, and then to Teddy Roosevelt, he’s going to have a hell of a legacy.
That’s funny, but when I was writing that Biden is probably the best president of my lifetime, I had to consider JFK and Eisenhower. I was too young to know them or what they were doing and I haven’t researched them: I’m not a historian. Trust me, six weeks ago I had no idea that I would be praising Biden like this. I am not raving about him, I don’t feel that level of adoration in me. I am just watching these words come out, in astonishment, because I really didn’t have any respect for him.
Biden's delivery lacks the charisma of Roosevelt (FDR) because of his speech struggles, and Kennedy could have been a movie star with his looks and stage presence (and beautiful, patrician Jackie), but more and more I believe that Biden has the chops. I recall Eisenhower's "I like Ike" slogan, but was too young to have any idea whether he was competent. We might be speaking too soon, considering the short time he's been in office, and with so much damage control ahead, but I believe the potential for greatness is there. He has certainly delivered amazingly these last 48 days - enough so that we're beginning to see many in the GOP scrambling to readjust their images, if that's possible. They see the threat.
You could be a journalist. I think you’re talking for upwards of 100 million people in this country alone. You’re probably talking for 80 or 90% of this forum.
Wow, now that's flattery! At my age, and with no training in journalism, I think you're being way too nice, but I am flattered. When Geoff Duncan, our Lt. Governor, boycotted the newest voter suppression legislation in Georgia, I had an aha moment. He sees landmines, and is wanting to have broader appeal, as has Romney. They're betting on rewards if they can manage to lose the Trumpstink. I'm guessing that the entire world is grateful, and a bit surprised at Biden's performance - no Sleepy Joe visible.
I’ve posted here several times in the past that we need to listen to the other side, we need to understand them, and we need to not underestimate them. I am with you, Daria - I have never said be nice to them. Know thine enemy. If you don’t know / understand them you can’t fight or defend against them.
I have a good deal of respect for your comments and can identify with much of your personal journey. Most of my family was and is liberal, though my maternal grandparents were as conservative and bigoted as the day is long. Their very narrow opinions made for a lot of friction in my youth including me letting them know how objectionable they were socially and morally. I'm afraid I lacked tact and grace more than I do now and by the time I was 20 had damaged my relationship with them beyond repair. When my grandfather died in 1974 we were on very bitter terms. My relationship with my grandmother improved a great deal but still, by the time she died in the early aughts, there were huge gaps in our relationship because of our personal beliefs. Now, I am constantly at loggerheads with my in-laws. They are wealthy, well educated and viciously Republican. If there has been a silver lining in Covid it's been our inability, (and unwillingness), to travel freely thus reducing my face to face exposure to their ever growing hate. They are in their 80s and 90s and will never change their points of view. All this despite the fact they have a Black granddaughter. They are unwilling to acknowledge how potentially damaging their beliefs are to her future as an American. She is eight. There will come a time, though, if they live long enough, where their bigotry and racism will become more apparent and impactful to her personally. I hope it never goes that far.
“Why do I surprise you?” Thank you for your transparency about yourself. That honesty answers the question. I didn’t have really good words for how to describe your post: sharp, biting, incisive. You just have a wickedly good insight into the whole Republican-Party-Kissing- Trump’s-Ass thing that just happened. Super nice insight.
Your tale about your in-laws: my dad is Republican conservative wealthy and downright stupid. I’m trying to decide what is harder, well-educated bigoted conservative in-laws or Dummkopf conservative bigoted father. The one constant is that they all seem to be rockheads. A jackhammer wouldn’t even do the trick of cracking them.
Ah, well, thanks. I appreciate that. I honestly believe wealthy, well educated bigots inflict a lot more harm in both the short and long run. They have the money to influence and frequently the ability to craft appealing rhetoric that sounds both logical and socially appropriate. They can justify murder if they have a mind to.
A lot of factors have brought me to where I am today. A lot about my childhood and teenage years did not strike me as unusual at the time. The realization that most people didn't have a 5 day a week maid or places to spend the summer just didn't hit home while I was "living in it". I look back on what was normal for my family at and am stunned by how fortunate we were, how much we took for granted. How many assumptions I made. The first huge eye opener was in the summer between my Junior and Senior years. I participated in a summer theater program at Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, MD. I became friends with a Black girl from DC during that summer. One day, she didn't come back to the theater from the restroom. I went to find her because we were reading scenes and we're up next. I found her in the bathroom beaten up, with a wet head, full of bubble gum. Her head had been dunked in the toilet. Several of Montgomery County's finest white girls were responsible. As horrified and angry as I was I cannot begin to understand the pain that young woman felt. I cannot imagine living with that experience embedded in my brain for the rest of my life. Of course, she never came back. And, of course, it didn't make the Post or the Star, because events like that were kept quiet and brushed under the rug. I'd love to tell you that that story is a figment of my imagination, but it's not. I will tell you that it was a huge epiphany for me. Had I seen racism before that day? Yes. Had I ever encountered that level of violence on a personal level before that incident? No. That one day forced me to understand racism viscerally, not just intellectually. It forced me to reevaluate everyone and everything around me. And speak up.
Daria, I had a little time to read comments this evening. Your story, stopped me from going on. Seeing the attack on your friend appears to be embedded in you. I wasn't a witness as you were, but the ugliness, disrespect and condescension that I saw as a child impressed me to know more. My antipathy to racism seems to be brain wired. Thank you, Daria, for sharing your experience.
Daria this is just brilliant. I have to include lynching and vicious violence in my screeds about the Republican Party being the bastion of the old Confederacy. I have to mention summary killings of Native Americans, by U.S. Cavalry, by settlers, by Spaniards and Texans and Californians and . . . . . . . Whites-first, racism, is not just genteel policy arguments on HCR and in the halls of Congress and state legislatures. Racism is DANGEROUS. Racism is GENOCIDAL. Racism, sexism, gay-ism, kills people. These are not polite conversation. When TC talks about “they pull out a knife, you pull out a gun,” these are not empty metaphors.
TC, easily the best post of the day and possibly your best work here on HCR. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
The last time I saw my grandmother in 1987 she was in her 80s and in a nursing home in Mississippi. I didn’t tell her that I had married a “nigra” woman & don’t know if anyone else in the family let her in on this ‘secret.’ I was her first grandson and sort of favorite. What would be the point? She and her generation were leaving.
Hey, I don’t have a problem with anyone nice-talking the enemy. And then while someone is nice-talking them, hit them with the
effing sledgehammer. Pass SB1, eliminate gerrymandering and the other bogus crap, and relegate those people to permanent minority status. All the while people can sweet talk them. Who cares about talk.
Roland, Lynn, there is a danger in all this for the country's defenders: you're dealing with deluders and the deluded. And... this remark of Karl Popper's has become like a jack-in-the-box in my mind:
"To attack a man for talking nonsense is like finding your mortal enemy drowning in a swamp and jumping in after him with a knife."
Someone mentioned the need for thigh boots when wading into this swamp.
Hey, Peter. Not sure if you are talking to me here (some people call me Lynn) but just wanted to clarify that my comment went more to correcting the source of the line TC used re pulling a gun over a knife. It wasn't from the movie Raiders, but the movie The Untouchables.
This got me to thinking, since TC is pretty accurate in his comments. So I did a search and came up with this from SNOPES:
"As it turned out, the comment was indeed made by then-Senator Obama at a fundraising event in the City of Brotherly Love, and it was not ignored by mainstream media outlets at the time. The New York Times, reported on 14 June 2008 that:
"Senator Barack Obama was fund-raising in Philadelphia. But he was talking about 'the Chicago way.'
"Channeling the mob drama, 'The Untouchables,' Mr. Obama said in reference to the general election rumble with the Republicans: 'If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.'”
Just FYI: Being a fan of living in a civilized society, I am not invested in the use of either a knife or a gun to make things "right." But I do enjoy the fantasy of a good movie where all kinds of laws are broken in the pursuit of justice. Just sayin'.
No, Lynell, I seem to have had an attack of the gremlins and don't know where "Lynn" came from. I was responding to Roland and (I guess) Diane Love.
I'd noticed the talk of guns and knives, but the quote from Karl Popper was nothing to do with all that. Just about the difficulties and dangers of dealing with knaves, suckers and their swamp, without getting drawn into it.
I'll admit to making frequent use of other men's sayings, but surely there's no harm in that when they express my thoughts better than I could express them myself. My hackles are raised by secondhand thinking -- when people adopt readymade prejudices. And I don't care whose prejudices we're talking about. I just want to ask people, what do YOU think, what do YOU feel?
That is what I appreciate when reading this thread.
If I said yesterday that, for me, David Carroll was welcome to ask his questions and put his views, I still feel the same way. What I'm not interested in is what his granddad or his party told him he was supposed to think. But the same goes for everyone, from right, from left, from center.
There's no interest in anyone, let alone politicians, who just says the right thing. We need to be one with our word.
How refreshing to be part of an online community where people quote Karl Popper. Alas, that thoughtful conservative would be a liberal in America's conservative party, or more likely, unwelcome altogether. Alas!
I always love that line too. TC you’re pulling that line out at exactly the right time. I could be wrong, but it looks like Biden is sweet talking them to their face and stabbing them in the back. Sweetly. Just as you suggest.
Biden has the Republicans’ backs too. They just can’t recognize it. When we remove the knife they might see the reality that they have become better off as a result of his tough love.
We all need to remember that there are Republican politicians, then Republican citizens. Of course, the third subset is Trumpublicans - hopefully an endangered species.
His years in politics are serving all of us magnificently. I did not think I would catch myself saying this, Joe Biden was not my first choice, but he might be the best president I have seen in my lifetime. He is doing everything I would’ve wanted my first choice to do, and more. He is an attack dog. TC, are you seeing what I’m seeing with this Biden character? Does he meet up to your Sean Connery and Harrison Ford standards?
They actually just came up with that on the fly doing the scene. originally, Indy was supposed to use his bullwhip, but Harrison Ford said that all the Han Solo fans who were going to come see the movie weren't going to buy him doing that after he killed Greedo in the good Star Wars movie.
I heard a different story, that he was sick that day and just trying to get through the day. He came up with the idea on the fly to end the scene quickly. I met my first actor ever a month ago, I’ll have to ask her.
The story I heard is from the era when Indiana Jones was produced, so perhaps you are right. Who knows. I’m not in that industry.
Hey TC, I asked you some questions elsewhere in this great discussion you started. I called Joe Biden an attack dog, among other things, (really? did I say that?) and I actually said that I thought, against my earlier opinion, that he might actually be living up to your Sean Connery and Harrison Ford standard. I was wondering what your take is on that. Like I said elsewhere here, Joe Biden was not my first choice, and I did not think I was going to like him. But now you are bringing the subject up. What’s your opinion?
My first reaction was “but that’s what TFG (the former guy) would and did do.” I’ve got to toughen up and get more ballsy, admittedly an anatomical stretch for me, as does the rest of the Democratic Party.
"The GOP-led Georgia Senate just voted 29-20 to PASS #SB241, one of the worst voter suppression bills in the country. It would end no-excuse mail voting, increase voter prosecution, and add racist ID requirements. The GOP continues their relentless attack on voting rights."
I suspect that the ACLU and many other groups have all the paperwork pre-set for the law suits to start rolling in. It is going to be important to help finance the legal defense funds that are going to be litigating against these New Jim Crow laws.
After reading a story in The Hill (I wait for Letters until the coffee is brewed) on the "surprise retirement" of a half dozen Republican senators, I had the idle thought as I poured the magic bean fluid of "We are going to have to Abrams the s*%t out of those states".
Quote from Matt Damon in "The Martian" where he says he has to "science the s*%t out of his surroundings to insure his survival.
Ally, this comment makes my day! I’m all about science-ing the s*%t out of stuff, but had never thought of my modus operandi in those terms. And Abrams-ing the s*%t out of several states is my new goal. Let’s go!!
The bright side: voter suppression has never been this obvious. Every news article I read calls it what it is, even if it doesn’t always mention the racist underpinning.
This is also creating problems within GA's GOP, as they realise this voter suppression can also hurt THEM. Abrams and GA Democrats are on it, so I don't think it will proceed without a fight. Even Raffensperger and Gov. Kemp oppose restricting mail-in voting. After all, it WAS put forward several years ago by the GA GOP. I don't expect things to necessarily sail through without resistance. It'd be curious to see how H.R. 1, currently before Congress, might affect some of these blatantly discriminatory voting restrictions.
Ah yes. Geoff Duncan is boycotting. I smell a run for higher office coming. Kemp has to be careful to not alienate moderate Republicans, suburban women, and the moderate Democrats, since Trumpers want to burn him at the stake.
As Bruce Sellers wrote, “This is also creating problems within GA's GOP, as they realise this voter suppression can also hurt THEM.”
Remember: it is by shining the light into the dark corners that you root out the cockroaches and the corruption. Personally I think we have the Social Lepers party on the run. Between the Trumpster versus principled Republican fights, which includes and likely inspired the half dozen recent Senatorial retirements, and the spotlight on racist voter suppression legislation, the Good Side is winning. But I’m with TC and the rest of you: pedal to the metal. Keep the accelerator floored. Keep the aircraft throttle firewalled. GO TEAM‼️🎉❤️
Not sure “nice talk” will be necessary. Their act is slowly becoming irrelevant. Georgia’s potential law is so nakedly racist that it will achieve at best, a Pyrrhic victory.
The struggle will admittedly be long and hard. But the Neanderthals are clearly on the run.
I often wonder, “What is the barrier to entry” to becoming a State (or Federal) legislature. Any state that would pass, or attempt to pass, a law making it illegal to feed, provide water, or in any way give material comfort to people waiting waiting in line to vote, would seem to have searched for the dumbest of the dumb to prop up in a legislative capacity. In the above case the fact that this is the product of panicked, vicious minds is obvious. But it’s not even self-serving. It is simply the capstone on a law that will provide vigorous, determined and highly motivated resistance.
The cracks are already appearing in this minority party. Mitt Romney and others are beginning to embrace the possibility of social programs, etc. So, some of the opposition are realizing that they have to change their game plan. Even though Georgia Republicans are abandoning any attempt to portray themselves as pro-citizen, the Lt. Governor is boycotting this slew of repressive legislation. My guess is that he realizes that there will be tremendous pushback, and he has higher political aspirations that will be in danger That's good, but we need to continue to resist, and relax only a bit when it is clear that the Republicans have abandoned their forays into fascism and have a common goal of representing all citizens, not the interests of big business. As you so aptly stated Eric,, "the struggle will admittedly be long and hard."
Nancy- Your words are true, holding "the enemies of Democracy accountable without apology or being "pollyanna" about this dire attack on Democracy. I wish to emmulate your razor sharp words that surgically expose the cancer of autocracy. Even though you are gracious, no one should mistake you for being Pollyanna.
Jay, thank you so much for the compliments. Yes, I talk way too much, and spend some time "counseling" friends who are much nicer than I when they fret about "how could they do that" and man's inhumanity to man. I'm something of a mild cynic, and while I hope for the best in people and institutions, I see potential pitfalls. True - no Pollyanna here.😉
I have long believed in the adage (I think it might be a Chinese saying - not sure): one cannot reason with mad dogs. Generally, where I grew up, a "mad dog" was handled with a burst of icy water. What I long for is to ice the GOP. Maybe if these obstructionist ancients have to stand and orate for hours on end a few of them will drop. One can hope.
Being criminalized certainly qualifies as an icy blast of cold. Half a dozen Republican senators retiring, that’s another blow to their collective egos. Ellen, have you seen any of the video of whiners who were at the January 6 Riot and then were placed on the No Fly list, or Richard Barnett’s temper tantrum in court? That’s just the beginning. The biggest wake-up call for them will probably be Donald Trump going to jail. Before that happens, all 800 January 6 rioters will already be arrested. All of this pushback from the justice system and from their corporate funders is a big wake-up call for these smug buffoons.
TC, get your facts straight. First, there are 49 legislatures that can be "controlled" as you put it. Nebraska is a unicameral legislature who's members are voted in nonpartisan.
As of February 1, 2021, 30 legislatures are totally controlled by Republicans with 23 States where the legislature and governorship is Republican. 18 legislatures are controlled by Democrats with 15 States having both the legislature and governor being Democrat. So where did the 43 come from?
When HCR talked about the one-party South from 1878 to the 1960s, she wasn't referring to "Dixiecans" but "Dixiecrats." The Democratic Party has a longer history of disenfranchisement of voting and other rights than the Republicans.
"The Democratic Party has a longer history of disenfranchisement of voting and other rights"
So what?? That was then, this is now. It's tedious to listen to folks who can't, or won't, distinguish between the Dems of the 1850s or Jim Crow era, and the contemporary Party. It is literally ignorant, i.e. ignor-ant, a deliberate choice to remain uninformed by disregarding facts. After the VRA in 1965, southern Dem vote suppressors migrated to the GOP where they found a hearty welcome. They've spent 50 years perfecting the suppression strategy and STILL won't cease and desist.
Another crucial difference today is that the GQP seeks, not to control or limit democracy, but to destroy it. The mob of filthy, seditious insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol was overwhelmingly Repuglycan; they will wear that badge of dishonor for eternity. It's not necessary to reprise their dismal litany of illegal and unconstitutional actions under Der Pu$$enGropenFuhrer, but anyone who doesn't see the pattern is ignor-ant. Dems have never had anything like the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Hillary identified many years ago. Now, excuse me, I'm off to burn the Confederate flag in public.
I think you missed my point about the problem of one party domination. HCR referred to the time period, not I. And that period was lead by Democrats. I had written more, but chose to delete it.
As for the so what of history, perhaps Foner's 2017 interview in the Nation can shed some light.
I don't deal in abstractions. National one-party rule is an abstraction, far less important than the actual, concrete results of GQP voter suppression and gerrymandering -- the product of one-party domination of red states. Dr Foner is a friendly acquaintance whose work is very familiar to me. Anyone can rummage through his oeuvre to find something that might support their views, especially from an interview which carries less weight than written publications. But his entire career shows that the large majority of his thought runs counter to yours.
I wrote a long reply, posted it, and then deleted it.
First, as I see it, you are dealing in abstractions now. You, and others, have yet to prove that the GOP gerrymanders and that their success in "red" states is a result of such a charge. More importantly, you and others make it sound that Dems have never engaged in such activity. More importantly, as this inane threat started, it's based on an opinion that will be spread as truth. I only pointed out the facts and reassert what HCR stated, one party domination is wrong. We saw it with the Southern Democrats in the South for nearly 100 years. Your better argument would have been, right, but we've learned our lessons and are trying to change.
Second, I've read Dr. Foner's work. Agree with some, not sure I accept other points of view. But, I do agree that we need a usable history to make progress at working towards the goals of our Constitution. Maybe we should adopt the high school requirements of the Germans. Make our students visit slave housings on a plantation or German/Italian/Japanese internment camps (built during the Democratic Presidencies of Wilson and Roosevelt) or walk the streets of disadvantaged neighborhoods/slums/jails/battlefields where Native Americans died, etc. Maybe then they'll realize what our history is really like and make an effort to do better.
Third, and final point, I believe we need to start looking for common ground versus the great divide we now endure. It's hard work, but it needs to be done. And, I believe President Biden's call to end this Uncivil War, one that both parties share in the blame, must be started. That doesn't mean rolling over and playing dead. But, it does mean listening to what others say. Dems hold the national power now. If they want to continue to and disrupt the trend of mid-term elections, the party needs to find a common ground to bring Republicans into their camp. Calling them the GQP isn't it.
Ok, on the gerrymandering question, I already mentioned California's history, that's all I know. End of story. The other experts here will have to engage you, and by now, they are reading the current HCR discussion. This page is old news.
I am of the opinion that the Southern Democrat Party bears little or no relation to the modern Democratic Party, but here again, Dr. Richardson or TPJ or Stuart or someone else will have to step in. In Lincoln's election, it was more like Europe is today, a multi-party system instead of a 2-party system, with 4 viable parties competing for representation in the WH. Somehow Lincoln won the election in what I have seen called in California a "jungle" election, which is a free-for-all, with everyone on the same ballot and not separate ballots like a primary election. The Southern Democrats became the party of the KKK, as disaffected Southerners, because it was the party of Southerners to begin with. Then somehow the Southern Democrats became merged with the Democrats, or changed names, I don't know, then LBJ and the Voting Rights Act drove them to the Republican Party.
I've never read Dr. Foner. That's between you and TPJ.
Of course I am in complete agreement with your statement about the high school requirements of the Germans. As far as I'm concerned, getting American high school students out of the classroom and into the field would give them education and knowledge they sorely lack.
Your final point about common ground: of course I agree completely, why else are you and I here having this conversation. I have had my father all my life, and I have engaged (albeit to a limited degree) in his social circle for decades, so I am accustomed to engagement and finding common ground. He and I love each other, even though we have so little in common, as it turns out, politically and socially. But nevertheless common ground is there, kindness, civility, generosity, mutual respect, there is plenty to recommend my father. People rave about him to me all the time.
I have received a bit of blowback, nothing serious but noticeable, here on HCR and elsewhere for taking what are apparently controversial positions. To your point: I think Adam Kinzinger, Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney voting for impeachment the 1st time, and other Republicans I could name, make a lot of sense, and they get my respect. Not my approval necessarily, not my undying love, but my respect. Even McConnell, whose methods I despise, has come out against the criminal Trump.
I hope you are ok with me disparaging 45, because this guy is so dirty in so many ways that it's impossible to keep track. He will need a presidential library just to contain all the evidence. Greg Olear on Substack has done numerous deep dive investigations, and nothing that comes out is ever pretty. Often, when the context is pertinent, I write his name as Tя☭mp because of his partnership with Putin. Remember them in Helsinki? Finland is kinda, sorta, in the Russian sphere of influence. From the Russian point of view, Finland is neutral ground, a fitting place for that meeting. Did we ever think we'd see a president who is friends with the leader of Russia? There is also sex crimes, there is NYC mob history (real estate related), there is financial corruption, each of these categories will require an entire wing in his presidential library.
Dr. Heather Cox Richardson tends to limit herself to what she knows, she has made that very clear, which means U.S. history. Russia is not her area of knowledge or expertise, so she stays on firm ground. However, I do not run this web site, I am not a respected historian with a reputation to uphold, I am merely a student, so I can speak as I please. These named Republicans care about the democracy enough, and are unswayed by the current anti-democratic tide enough, to get my tacit approval. My father voted for Mitt Romney back when he was running against Obama. I would have a conversation with Larry Hogan or Ben Sasse in a heartbeat. They might not get my vote if I were in their district, but hey, they would probably get my dad's vote.
Personally, I don't find it offensive to call the GOP the "GQP." However, I want to set the table with you, and that conversation is quite a bit more controversial than what we have been discussing, so I'll table it for now. I will say this: I do not identify as a Democrat. I may vote Democrat, but that's it, I do not affiliate with parties, although I could call myself a Green, which, curiously and ironically, appeared in Bavaria, the home of my heritage. If the Democratic Party started attracting racists and anti-Semites to its cause, I would disown them in a heartbeat. The man with the shirt that says "Camp Auschwitz" on the front and "Staff" on the back is not my friend. My wife saw that in real time, on TV, on January 6. She is half Jewish, her maternal relatives were wiped out of their town in what is now Belarus by the Germans. That's just an aside, but it's pertinent because it refreshes my other point, that these genteel words in print on HCR's web page may seem divorced from the real world, but they are not. Anti-Semitism wasted millions of lives. I have relatives who fought and died on what Nazi Germany called "the Eastern front," when Russians and eastern Europeans were considered subhumans. So blood is at stake here. Lives at are stake.
Speaking for myself, a party that coddles and takes in money and support from that demographic is not going to make me smile or make me just walk away.
In closing, Larry, I just want to say I am not conflict averse. I have defused tensions here. Not always successfully, but that seems to be my role, much more than being a source of history knowledge. So you can bring up anything with me that you like, anything. I can handle it. If I don't know enough, if my resources are insufficient, I will say so. I am that guy who runs counter to the stereotype: I use maps. I get directions. I read the instructions. I rely on resources and information, and I'm not shy about it. But I also don't accept information blindly, I am acutely aware of the reliability of a source, and even then, you have to remain cautious. For example, I am very skeptical of giving a political news TV show the name "Reliable Sources." Come on. If you just believe what people tell you, you deserve the consequences of being a misguided fool. That's how the Russians view DT, by the way, "a useful fool," a tool.
I stand on firm ground in certain areas, and when I do, you will have to use convincing arguments to get me to agree.
Good talking to you.
Hope your experience here in Dr. Richardson's subscriber community goes more smoothly from now on.
Enjoy the rest of your day and week. My best to you and your family.
Hello again Larry! I'm at home, on my laptop, I can actually follow the discussion much more easily because of the much larger screen. It's snowing where I live in rural mountainous California, I'm not working tomorrow, perfect time to get back to you. Van Morrison is on Pandora, my wife is playing something called the J.J. Cale music channel, Lord knows what that is, but I love the songs that are playing. We just finished watching latest episode of To Tell The Truth, with Anthony Anderson and his mom Doris.
I am setting a scene to let you know I am a real person. You gave us a ton of information about yourself, but unfortunately I don't have access to it now: I'm sorry you deleted your post, it had a wealth of information. Normally we don't delete posts here, even with errors, we just correct in an add-on post. If I'd known this would happen, I would have copied and stored your words.
Since we are getting to know each other, a few things about me that most of the people here already know: I am 62. White, male and straight. That's important, it turns out, when we are discussing U.S. politics. I am not a FB or Tw or social media user, opposed to the business model. This forum is my first on-line community. Otherwise Greg Olear and Lucian Truscott on Substack, TC referred me to Lucian, and we have text groups in my family, that's it.
My parents were born in Germany and my dad in particular had a front-row seat for the entire Hitler administration, because he is from Munich. Our family lived in Germany in my teens, I knew my pro-Hitler grandmother, visited the paternal childhood home often, visited Dachau once, so I have some education with that period. All my heritage is German. I speak German, and am something of a linguist, certainly a better linguist than historian. I am the first in my immediate family born in this country, 2nd overall behind my 1st cousin Mike, my parents met in San Francisco and had me there. Public school in SF and the metro area, later graduated from a civilian school with an American high school diploma in Germany, college in southern California, engineering degree, Eagle Scout (you can take the boy out of Scouting, but you can't take Scouting out of the man), yada yada yada.
Not a historian, rely on the wealth and depth of knowledge here in this group, and trust me, it is extensive. I do not recommend underestimating that depth of knowledge, TPJ for example is a working history teacher in Boston, Linda Mitchell another history expert, TCinLA (I call him "TC") 20thC and WW2 and military and beyond expert, and the list goes on and on . . .
I am surmising you have been a Republican for a long time, perhaps are now, based on your post. My father is a diehard German-born conservative, and once he arrived in this country, lifetime Republican. Votes like clockwork, watches Fox and reads WSJ regularly. Drives me crazy my entire life, this month I have finally figured him out.
It has taken me a lifetime to discover who I am politically and socially. My wife is from southern California and moved to the SF area as soon as she could, but she could easily have been born in Berkeley, and in fact she lived next-door in Oakland for decades. Some of her closest friends are Cal grads. Her parents are actual Communists. Had to change lifestyle during Joe McCarthy years. Union organizer parents, mom with social worker degree from UCLA, believed in the ideal of communism until disillusioned by the Soviet Union and then abandoned it.
I didn't meet my wife knowing about her politics, that showed up later. I met her in a personal growth environment, what my dad would derisively call a hippie setting.
In context of a recent HCR discussion about Christianity, I found myself posting about my Christian pedigree. I didn't even know I had a Christian pedigree until a few weeks ago. Father raised Roman Catholic in Bavaria, where Josef Ratzinger, the last pope, is from. Went to Sunday School as an elementary school age kid. Even applied to Yale Divinity School in my 20s and got offered full ride scholarship, but changed my mind and took a different direction, aviation technology program. Learned mechanical stuff, machines and engines and aircraft and autos.
I have had more jobs than I can remember, my C.V. would run on for 10 to 20 pages. Transportation and psychology are the biggest themes. Very briefly aviation mechanic, 6 years limo and van driver, and for the last 23 years, trucking, so that's over 30 years in transport.
On this forum, I am testing out my knowledge of politics and society and U.S. history like never before. I'm no dummy, I was first (in my class of just 44) in H.S., but didn't take any history or politics in college, and my WW2 and Nazi Germany knowledge is self-taught.
Most of what I know about U.S. politics I learned in the past 12 months here on HCR and by reading the news. I defer to others constantly. Until now, spurned politics.
Hello Larry. I’m not in a great position right now to give your post the respect it deserves. I’m on the road working, driving truck, with my little iPhone. I think I had to scroll down 12 to 15 times just to read your entire post. For now, I will say this: I am glad that you are being honest about where you stand, and I accept your challenge of providing evidence and reasonable counter arguments to your points. But you’ll have to wait. I’ll give you just one small teaser: is there proof that removing gerrymandering sidelines Republican politicians? No, of course not. I’m not sure it’s provable. However, there is excellent evidence that a goodbye to gerrymandering means a goodbye to Republican power. In California after the 2010 census, a citizens group redistricted the entire state. Lots of public scrutiny of the entire process, tremendous amount of data and information brought to bear to decide exactly where to draw the lines. Widespread public approval of the process. In 2018, out of 53 California House districts, only 7 Republican House members. After 2020 election, I believe 12 Republican House members out of 53. Super majorities in both state legislatures. In California, the republican party as a political force is neutered, an endangered species. Still millions and millions of Republican citizens, just no political power. OK back to work. Thank you for engaging, I’ll get back to you.
“As of February 19, 2021, state lawmakers have carried over, prefiled, or introduced 253 bills with provisions that restrict voting access in 43 states, and 704 bills with provisions that expand voting access in a different set of 43 states.”
Ellie, that does not mean 43 states are Republican or Republican controlled. In my own state, a blue one with both chambers and governor being Democrat, such bills have been introduced. How they fare time will tell.
MediaBias/Fact Check ranks the Brennan Center as highly factual, but puts the following caveat in their description of the organization.
"These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation."
I only supported the statistic of 43 states in which voter suppression measures have been introduced, as cited by the Brennan Center. I wrote nothing about the legislatures being Republican controlled or projecting how those bills would fare.
As for MediaBias, NY Times and WaPo did not even make their cut of unbiased, but North Korea Times did. MarketWatch has a better graph locating media on a left-right axis and factual-non-factual.
The state legislatures in red states are having a massive temper tantrum. Courts have to take it on now, and I worry about McConnell's little band of loyalists in there.
My whole life I’ve been trying to figure out my dad. I’ve been trying to figure out myself too in relation to him. It has all come together for me.
The root of the conservative world view is maintaining the status quo, maintaining the old society. So now I have no trouble seeing the link between making Mr. Potato Head gender neutral, and ending publication of certain Dr. Seuss books, and banning Confederate flags from NASCAR, and trans toilets, and racism-based voter suppression, and why Trump is their hero, and all of it. The Republican Party, the country club set, the Mercedes and mini-mansion fixation, all of it is my dad and all of it clicks now.
The old society is based in unacknowledged racism, unacknowledged sexism, unacknowledged hetero-ism, and ostentatious & gaudy (and nauseating) status symbol and prestige displays. Even the part Republican politicians being about self-service instead of public service.
My entire life I’ve hated all of it. Retch. And now I can identify it clearly and see all of it.
The many disparate issues and aspects, the seemingly disconnected rants and complaints, all make sense to me now. All of it fits together perfectly.
Thank you so much Dr. Richardson. Thank you so much all of you. You have been an invaluable catalyst in my education. I owe all of you a great debt of gratitude.
Roland, your personal journey certainly has a solid ring of truth for me. I grew up in a family of privilege, and "practiced"all that goes with it. We called my father "the general" because he ruled the house with an iron, bigoted, misogynist, xenophobic fist. Somehow, I managed to escape most of that except not totally realizing my own white privilege. Not so all my family. I wish there were more folks in the world, including the fools in Congress, who would take the time to reflect as you have.
Roland you are so right. Canary in the coal mine. Change is a-comin'. I'm not done with this yet, but here is a concluding snippet:
"Indeed, we are walking backwards into the future. I look to indigenous tribes such as the Lakota in North America or the Musica in South America for examples of large social groups. The ancient worldview where fear is replaced with hope, inner truths are valued above all, community wellness and resiliency is a prime driver, and equality of the masculine and feminine will dominate our social relations."
Roland, so much of what you say rings true for me, too. I think we share the German immigrant father, too, and I never discount how his experiences here during the war, as a young boy, shaped his world view, never mind his typically German domineering mother. But. What I think you get wrong is the mini-mansion, ostentatious wealth part. As a prep school girl, and a peripheral participant in the country club cotillion set, ostentation was never part of it. For people with true inherited wealth, that was frowned upon, and I assume still is. We all wore battered Top Siders, drove old volvos, and that was the public face of it. Old money didn’t flaunt. I think in part that’s why Trump was rejected by NY society - he is nouveau riche to the core, and the antithesis of what they are. I much prefer the university circle we move in now, and have left that world behind, so maybe things have changed. But I doubt it.
Hello Kathy. Love love your message. My ex-wife is Boston blue blood and NY Vanderbilt old money. I know exactly what you mean, I had quite the education into that world. I also went to a private school, so I know about that tattered jeans look. But think about it. The original racists were royalty and slaveowners and industrialists. The richest people. The ones trying to rule everything and everybody. They thought they owned the world, and at the height of the British Empire and the Spanish Empire, they effectively did. Ignore what I said about ostentation. Just think hideous amounts of wealth. The racism and sexism of extreme wealth is legendary. That’s all I have to say.
Well said, Roland! Power is hard to come by, but even harder to relinquish. For over 400 years, the white minority has used hate and fear to suppress the 'mudsills' of society that outnumber them. We were naive to think that the election of Barack Obama was the beginning of a post-racial America. At best it was an acknowledgement of the impact of the civil rights movement of the mid Twentieth Century. But that's the short game, and the long game is on their side.
President Obama's election was not the beginning of a post-racial America, but was rather the rebirth of Jim Crow. My friends on the "right" are saying that Obama's presidency "recreated" racism. I say it ripped the scab off of a badly infected wound and we got left with all the nastiness from such a wound.
What Obama’s presidency exposed was the failure to deal with America’s GREAT Big Lie: that white people are superior to people of color. We did not address that lie after the Civil War, and it came roaring back in 1877. We have continued to be negatively impacted by that GREAT Big Lie to the extent that one political party doesn’t even want our government to be successful and perfect the union for everyone.
Before the 21C, Andrew Johnson was definitely the Worst President Ever. He almost singlehandedly killed Reconstruction by requiring only abolition from seceded states to rejoin the Union, while enabling their worst practices. The resulting Black Codes were slavery in all but name. This despite a Congress and admin that clearly supported Freedpeople's rights. For several years the Grant admin tried heroically to defend them, but the so-called Redeemers ultimately re-entrenched white supremacy.
Fresh air might help heal the pustulant wound. We are short sighted creatures. We want it all now and this is a very long game. As the Italians say, piano piano piano.
Conservatives have been playing the long game since Ross Perot received almost 19% of the vote but not one Elector in 1992. That was when the conservatves decided to take over the Republican Party. The Progressives did not start the long game until the year 2000 when Gore and Bush refused to allow Nader to even attend the presidential debates.
Independent votes represent hundreds of thousands of voters.
Roland you're one of the people who I think of as the "canary int he coal mine" members of this conversation group. When you erupt I know to get super worried.. Although I am now one of the very privileged, both sides of my family were definitely hardscrabble when they arrived here from their various places of origin. The good news is that, when they did achieve financial and social success they did not lose that understanding of where they came from, perhaps because neither side was mainstream in most ways that rendered someone acceptable to Mittle Amerika. I never had to struggle against the complacency and smugness of white privilege in my family so I had that secure space, even cocooned inside the privilege my father and (on the maternal side) my great-grandfather worked so hard to achieve. I think it made a difference. I am so grateful I don't have to fight with family members about politics! It was hard enough dealing with my EX-spouse about it . . .
Here’s the mystery, Roland. Did Hasbro castrate Mr. Potato Head so no one could see his genitals? That would be the extreme remedy. Why didn’t they just paint him some pants? I think there should be an investigation.
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV). “The filibuster should be painful, it really should be painful and we've made it more comfortable over the years,” Manchin said yesterday on the Fox News Channel. “Maybe it has to be more painful.” Well, hot dog. I wonder who lit a fire under Senator Manchin's behind? He surely didn't do this of his own volition.
And so, after the RNC tells Donald that they CAN use his image they fluff him up by booking events at his dreadful, tacky club in April. This is how Trump has managed to live his entire life - by bending people over a barrel so far and so hard that they have to play his game. Republicans aren't just deplorable they're weak-willed, lily-livered chumps. Disgusting. I'm going to bed. Good night Heather, good night one and all. Sleep well.
It is beyond pitiful that even with what TFG has done to effectively end the Republican party, they continue to pay him homage and increase his coffers. I've got Sicilian blood in my veins, and I guarantee you we would never let anyone do this! Tony Soprano, where are you when we need you?
Option A) Leave things the way they are, so meaningful election reform, infrastructure improvement, existentially necessary legislative responses to climate change (the elephant in the room), police reform, common sense gun and immigration laws, reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, fairer wealth distribution via more progressive taxation, eventual elimination of the Electoral College (and the list is very long given how little good governance we have had since, well, LBJ) WILL NOT HAPPEN under this administration, leading to significant GOP gains in the 2022 mid-terms. End of American democracy.
Option B) Eliminate the filibuster (or return it to the Jimmy Stewart model, though why we would do that - except to save face for a few Demopublicans - I can barely imagine) and pass all of the above or even just a few of the above and take it to the voters in 2022. Joe Biden will be a national hero in the mold of FDR and Kamala Harris will carry on in the same vein in 2024. The GOP will either change or disappear. Trump will die in prison.
We have seen that government by reconciliation and presidential decree cannot do enough and causes even greater political division than the already unsustainable variety we have now.
This is not the moment to try to return to a Reaganesque-Clintonesque "normal". No, it is time to live up to our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and institute - finally - government of, by and for the people.
I’m with option B as well, I say Game On, we didn’t flip the senate here in GA and rid ourselves of the insipid occupant of the WH only to watch it fritter away, the just passed recovery bill is only the beginning, of the changes we need to make to reorient this nation so that it benefits all of us, not just the people that will never be able to spend the money they already have.
I'm with B. We have the chance to govern...Let's do it! Let's not let this opportunity slip away. Stacie Abrams pulled off a miracle in Georgia. We cannot squander the hard work and hard won votes of Democrats and Progressives. Let's start burying fascism and greed and protect the vote. Is there a risk if we abolish the filibuster? Yes, but a greater risk if we achieve nothing in the next two years. Offense is very often the best defense.
WE need to fix this NOW! You all know that if...or when...Republicans gain control of the Senate again, the filibuster will be gone in a New York minute!
The future of the fillibuster is indeed an important issue, about which two things need to be clarified: (1) This is NOT a constitutional question, but "only" about the rules of the Senate. It's remarkable, and difficult to explain to folks who aren't polit-junkies, that so much hangs on that kind of issue; (2) if Prof. Richardson is correct, and I believe she is, the slogan "end the fillibuster" is clearly based on a fundamental misunderstanding. If Sen. Manchin is right, and surely he knows what he's talking about in this case, the issue is NOT ending the fillibuster altogether, but restoring the "painful" fillibusters of yesteryear. Do Democrats really want to go there? Those southern fillibusterers (what a word) were nominally also Democrats, but not the kind the modern party wants to have anything to do with. the accurate slogan would appear to be "end the supermajority, restore majority rule in the Senate". Unfortunately, the train has already left the station, so "end the fillibuster" it will be in media-land. Disappointment on the left is preprogrammed. Besides, if the DEMS somehow manage to lose control of both houses in 2022, they will surely wish they had retained this weapon. Joe Biden has a point; be careful what you wish for.
Yes, “End the filibuster” is as unfortunate a slogan as “Defund the police”. But I agree that it should at least be returned to the rules that require a senator to actually stand there and talk, on topic. No more EZ Pass.
As someone who by any American standard I know of is way out on the left on most issues and as a white 69 year-old man who totally agrees with the objectives of the Black Lives Matter movement, I think "Defund the police" is one of the dumbest political slogans ever coined. Who came up with this? Roger Stone? Sure, as a leftie I see where this comes from and that it doesn't literally mean "disband the police", but isn't the idea to convince voters who may not be knee-jerk progressives or African Americans that there is a serious problem with how policing is done in most of America, that it is shot through with racism and abuse, and that the legal system and our best wishes alone cannot make things better, so we need to REFORM the police? Just asking...
As a slogan, "end the filibuster" may not be the greatest, but at least it's not the worst.
I have tried using the word "refocus" the police, often with "let them do what they do well, and leave the "catchall" responsibilities that have come with the continuing decline in social, mental, scholastic revenues and make everything from truancy to homelessness to mental illness into police problems. Cops don't do mental health treatment well, nor do they have the training or temperament to handle social issues, especially with no resources to offer.
Sure, "defund the police" is misplaced. But remember how high feelings ran after we lost George Floyd? Those towering emotions cannot be denied. The hostility DTP evoked shows how potent it is: hit 'em in the budget, it's the only place they feel anything. Tat is the proper starting point of discussion.
NB, I wish I had been part of LFAA back in the June Days. Community was so important then. It always is.
It’s not always true that they don’t have the capability. I have a police officer in my family who is good at it. But it is difficult and it’s very difficult to be ready to defend yourself against a moral attack and be is psychological counselor. First you have to determine if people have a gun or a knife in their pocket
In addition to making a senator actually stand and talk if they want to stall a bill, there is one other crucial adjustment needed. Instead of requiring a 60% to end the filibuster, flip it: require a 40% vote to keep it going. That way, the minority party doing the blockade has to keep 40 senators (while there is a total of 100) present at all times, or the majority can wind a vote to end debate. Make the obstructors bear the burden.
I think I agree with you. It’s a thorny problem and I wonder how it will work itself out. Our country needs this bill to protect voting rights and honestly it’s 2021 and it’s like we’re still fighting a civil war. We spend so much time fighting when we could be working together.
My husband went down to Savannah one year when we were friends and helped officiate some sailboat races. He said he and his team had some awkward interactions and they decided they just didn’t enjoy the southerners. I just want them to turn a corner get over it. Actually they should apologize for seceding and creating this never ending mess. I guess it’s like a huge family rift that goes on and on.
So on a certain level I have to say this is completely crazy and maybe why my French friends say you Americans just love to fight. I’m an American and I don’t like fighting— I’ll do it if I have to but I’d rather get along. From my perspective and we do have a southern daughter in law-/ it’s almost like they had to convince themselves that slavery was really ok and that the damn Yankees just destroyed everything and that they’ve got to stick together in this opinion. Meanwhile there are no more working plantations that I’m aware of and how many years has it been. Why can’t they just get over it 146 years later?
That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with. There are plenty of southerners who are just as opposed to racism as I assume you are. I'm one of them.
I grew up in the south, and will stop using the broad brush when DEMs take a few more Senate seats and Prez votes in that region. So far, folks like you don't seem to be in the majority there.
Just went down a rabbit hole exploring the current state of plantations. They are still around, many as tourist spots, but Angola, it was a plantation and now is a prison plantation. The lede photograph is just horror.
My family of origin, god-fearing fundamentalists, hold tightly to a patriarchal position of white male supremacy. The god/father figure owns the chattel (land, women, children, animals). The entitlement of ownership gives rise to the abuses of power over. These men (and women who become honorary men [aka 'token torturers' see Mary
Daly]) don't have to own Black people to continue the culture, they just want everyone to "know their place" and stay in it.
Thanks for the explanation— now I know why our Harvard/Stanford educated southern daughter in law lets her husband control everything and barely says boo at the dinner table—I’ve never been able to fathom it. Thank you!
It's odd that the French, whose streets are often filled with the Gilet Jaunes, riot police, tractor protests, and who accept the clearing of the Calais "jungle", etc, think Americans "love to fight." Granted, the US probably racks up more protests, especially in smaller communities, but it was the American Revolution that actually inspired France's will to overcome their monarchy! Rousseau's words “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” continue to inspire movements around the world. So, I say, France should be proud to have provided the psychological underpinnings for America's dedication to freedom and the continual struggle it demands.
So Norm Orenstein has a couple of theories that might appeal to Manchin. One is to keep the minority party on the floor for days on end debating the issue. The fact is that all of them must be in the Senate chambers. Orenstein figures that a lot of the Repubs will get tired or bored about the debate, that a few would succumb to joining the Dems. At least, that is what I understand. Here is Orenstein’s thoughts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/02/manchin-filibuster-never-sinema/?outputType=amp
I like the other proposal which is to change the filibuster needing 60 votes to stop the debate to the filibuster needing 40 (actually Norm Orenstein thinks the ideal is 41) to keep the debate going. That means the minority has to work at it but one still has the filibuster available at the times it is needed. But it gets rid of the easy obstruction it now represents.
I can picture the likes of Rand Paul or Ted Cruz playing computer games or doodling while a party member is "orating" during a filibuster. And, I agree making it a painful experience is the way to go for now.
I used to get mixed up between Orenstein and Ornstein, too. That's why I re-checked the spelling of his name when I post.
I just now re-checked it, again, and changing my typing from Ormstein to Ornstein got rid of that squiggly red line under the misspelling. Now how did the Spelling Gods of Silicon Valley know that?
I agree that "restore majority rule in the Senate" is a much better slogan than "end the filibuster", as at least a few (not too many, I hope) uninformed Americans will be surprised to know that any majority can be different from a simple one-vote majority or that - for some time, now - most legislation can only be passed in the Senate with a 20-vote majority, so that most House-passed legislation is never even considered by the Senate, and that is why our nation appears to moving backward and not forward (whatever that means). We politics junkies know all this stuff, but lots of nice - and not so nice - folks don't.
On the other hand, worrying about what a future GOP-controlled Senate might do in the absence of the filibuster is pointless. Clearly this GOP would not think twice about eliminating it in service of their nefarious designs. If the DEMs under Biden are crippled by fear at the very moment they can actually turn around 40 years of trickle-down, laissez-faire, survival-of-fittest, who-you-lookin-at-boy misgovernment, then why on earth did we vote for them? If it is our destiny to have to live in an authoritarian, racist oligarchy, well, let's just get on with it. To the barricades! Nothing is forever except death.
This moment appears to be the only chance to pass HR 1, Voting Rights Bill, in the Senate. If it requires ending the filibuster, do it. This one bill can do more to return our democracy to its foundations than any legislation since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. LBJ, who initiated the '65 legislation and signed it, was the very model of daring-do. He wouldn't hesitate. The Democrats should go there because without restoring voting rights, there is no democracy.
Getting rid of the filibuster makes sense to a lot of people. The votes are not there to do it. Making the filibuster a lot more painful and obvious is a step in the right direction, and it just might have the necessary votes. If even that does not get the voting rights bills past, maybe the holdouts will change their minds and vote to abolish. It's only been a pro-slavery, anti-civil rights maneuver anyway. I do remember Ted Kennedy using it to block Nixon's health care plan - the one that was the basis for Romney's plan in MA and then for Obama's - because it lacked a public option. That turned out to have been a mistake.
Hello Joan. The US healthcare insurance system pre-ACA was an abomination, while Obamacare is - at best - a significant but inadequate incremental improvement. My wife and I are over 65 and living on govt. pensions in Italy. I recently had a small skin tumor surgically removed, while my wife had a cataract fixed, all without pain or complication. The bill? What bill? This is Italy. Healthcare here is a right written into the Constitution. We have never received a bill for healthcare in Italy. Most Americans have no idea of how bad they have it when it comes to healthcare.
I guess if Joe Manchin and a few other "moderate" Democrats dig in their heels over the filibuster, US healthcare will continue to be an embarrassment for the foreseeable future. Ted Kennedy should not have used the filibuster to block Nixon's healthcare plan because - like Obama's - it was no doubt better than nothing and might have morphed into something more appropriate for a wealthy and powerful democracy, who knows?
Well, that was then, when there were still a few liberal Republicans, a few conservative Democrats, and general agreement that government was not something to be derided and then drowned in a bathtub, but in today's political hell, the GOP has become an organized crime syndicate aspiring to dictatorship. The events of Jan 6th are proof that I am not merely ranting here.
The bottom line is that there is no room for error or half-measures now. Despite the cheap, instant transmission of an infinite amount of information to anyone with a smartphone and easy access to reliable sources of fact-based news, many poorly educated Americans are in thrall to gurus, seers, and noisy paranoid schizophrenics who exploit their lack of knowledge and discernment and can convince them of almost anything. Throw in residual and not-so-latent racism and other forms of xenophobia, 40+ years of stagnant middle-class wages, rising rents, unaffordable higher education and the fetishization of the invisible hand and $$$$ and we have a dire situation that must be radically changed before the midterm elections in 2022.
But no, now we have to worry about a supposed Democrat's nostalgia for a Senate rule based on a mistake made by Aaron Burr a couple of hundred years ago and used to greatest effect in my lifetime to block Jim-Crow-killing civil rights bills. Will this last, best chance to save our democracy be simply (excuse the expression) pissed away if the "holdouts" maybe don't change their minds?
Thanks, David, for this good summary of politics since Nixon. In retrospect, some see him as the last liberal president of the 20C, If liberalism is defined as believing in government's role and using it to advance the common good. When it came to dirty tricks, conspiracy, secret bombings etc, definitely not so much.
There are a few things that are so solidly consistant, they might as well be considered forever. Gravity for example, exists throughout the universe. They discovered even light survives entry into a black hole. Many processes go through cycles of consistant change but continue forever such as the planets traveling around a sun. Why is Western Civilization blinded by the death of all things rather than the shared reality of renewal such as Spring?
Heard on Rachael Maddow podcast, Georgia is pursuing racketeering charges against Trump that could carry a 20 year sentence. They have hired an expert on such cases.
Good morning everyone! HCR: "nothing you can't miss"? Reading this letter this morning belies that statement! The groveling and temper tantrums of the Gormless Ones and the Cheeto? Where will that end up? And, even more stark for our future, the fight over the filibuster. I disagree with the people who say that returning it to its original intent--to make it painful--is pointless. I think it is insufficient, but I DO think that it will give pause to the Mindless-Powermongering Wing (Hawley, Cruz, etc) because in my experience of these guys and gals they don't want to work that hard. That is why the Repugnants (to borrow a term from one of my companions here) changed the nature of the filibuster in the first place. Any move forward is positive--even if it is baby steps.
For me the news from yesterday that had me pausing was the news that Roy Blunt has decided not to run for re-election in 2022. I am surprised by this but, in another way, not surprised. He is a mainstream GOP guy from a long lineage of MO pols. He is playing with the idea of running for Prez but he is about as interesting as string cheese, and about as slippery. The tension between him and Hawley is also pretty clear--Hawley is enough of a narcissist that he thinks he can ignore the senior Senator with impunity. What Hawley doesn't understand is that Blunt--although I loathe and detest his politics on every level--is a legit "nice guy," who is well liked. He told my Congressman, Emmanuel Cleaver II, privately that he was not going to run, which considering their radical differences was a gentlemanly move that Cleaver appreciated.
So now we have a tiny opening in Missouri for 2022. And we need to drive a big ol' bulldozer through it.
Roy Blunt is retiree #5, Missouri Senator since 2011. Somehow he managed to become the fourth highest Republican in the Senate. It’s obvious that he is a huge loss by reading McConnell’s statement. (see link)
We already have the Republican Senate departures of Pat Toomey (PA since 2011), Richard Burr (NC since 2005), Rob Portman (OH since 2011), and Richard Shelby (AL since 1987).
Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told reporters Monday that Blunt’s decision — joining the other GOP senators who have opted for retirement — “speaks volumes about what is happening in the Republican Party right now.”
“That certainly means that Republicans are viewing their party as in trouble, as one that is going to have a real difficult year next year,” he said.
Yeah, I have to be realistic about this, Joe! Love her but the risk of having someone worse than Hawley (and there are a few in this state!) wind up in the seat is a real danger. It will have to be someone a very diverse state can live with (like Claire McCaskill was) AND the other side has to screw up (e.g. the candidate in 2012, Todd Akin, who lost after he stated that "women can shut that whole thing down" [that is, becoming pregnant] if they are raped and so pregnancy resulting from rape can't be rape).
Your closing sentence puts our future in stark perspective. It drives home the scope of damage Trump inflicted on the nation with The Big Lie. He was like a fleeing army laying mines and other traps to cripple the advancing conquering force.
Given all that has happened since Trump's election, Democrats will not sit idle in the face of voter suppression, which they might have in the past. We know what's on the line, as you effectively captured. Millions of young people now have a taste of the power and influence they possess. African-Americans young and old are as motivated and engaged as they have ever been, not to mention organized. The fight to vote will be epic.
Key, however, is the Biden Administration continuing to deliver on major campaign pledges to keep new and occasional voters engaged. That's why, as you wrote, the filibuster looms over everything. Many voters don't understand or care about it. They only care about results.
And we've seen how Stacey Abrams's determined approach, over about a decade, worked to win Georgia elections -- after she lost in a squeaker to Brian Kemp. She lost but came back.
"For a West Virginia Democrat [Joe Manchin], heavy criticism from key members of his own party, up to and including President Biden, might wind up working to Manchin’s advantage. That was true of an earlier apostate, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), who’s been reelected several times after switching from Democrat to Republican in 1994, after butting heads with President Bill Clinton."
"Instead of naming and shaming them, Democrats might consider looking at what Manchin and Sinema like about the filibuster. Sinema recently said, “Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, it’s meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans.” Last year, Manchin said, “The minority should have input — that’s the whole purpose for the Senate. If you basically do away with the filibuster altogether for legislation, you won’t have the Senate. You’re a glorified House. And I will not do that.”"
Here are the points outlined in Norman Ornstein's article:
-- Make the minority do the work.
-- Go back to the “present and voting” standard.
-- Narrow the supermajority requirement.
I invite you to follow the link and read the article. New ideas!
I am sending comments to my Senators (Schumer and Gillibrand) asking them to "adjust" the filibuster. Including Joe Manchin's idea of making it painful.
I did read the Wpo article on the Filibuster and have had a day to think about what I want from my government.
It is pretty simple. Sometimes a minority is correct. I want the minority to have a way to express themselves. I want is to see a Senate chamber filled with Senators every day who are talking about real issues without dollar signs pasted over their eyes. I want to see if the minority can convince the majority not whether some arcane rules can be manipulated to control my future. What I want is for every bill that is introduced in either house to have its day in the sun, to be talked about debated on, reported on and then voted on. I want majority rule in the end even if that majority is only by one.
I want simplicity, transparency, responsibility. I want people to run for office because they love democracy and want to be a part of it not because they love power and can’t imagine living without it. Politics is a dirty business. I want it cleaned up.
What I don’t want is what we have. Rule by manipulation. Rule by addicts to power. Rule by deep pockets. Rule not by law but by finance. Basically capitalism run amuck.
Patrick Munson wrote: "I want majority rule in the end if that majority is only by one." This is the only sentence I absolutely oppose!!! PLEASE RECONSIDER the serious ramifications majority rule!! That could too easily become an oligarchy if only rich people can afford to run for office.
TPJ "minority rule opposed to anything bur the interests of the 1%" is what we have now. The whole concept that a 600 page bill only has two choices, yea or ney.
What if senators had to vote for each page. A 600 page bill would require 3001 votes by 100 Senator in order to pass. If it only received 2999 votes, the page that received the fewest votes would be removed or modified. If the bill only received 2990 votes, the 10 pages with the fewest votes would either be removed or modified. Think outside the box. Make them debate on the record.
I'm thinking oligarchy can only be prevented by voter rights and election reform (HR1 S1 and I would go further to say elections are completely state sponsored, no private money) and by everyone exercising those rights. After that. its the majority. Curious to know what your alternative would be?
Even in that fantasy world, the majority could become a mob inthralled by an oligarch. Let's pretend there is no racism and everyone had sufficient access to food, shelter, clean water, and safety from domestic violence. Then the majority would be free enough to think for themselves and make decisions that would use natural resources wisely.
I looked up the origin of the word “filibuster”. The French and Spanish applied the term to pirates back in earlier centuries. It has come to mean sabotage, as in the minority’s ability to sabotage legislation. Think on what it means for the minority to sabotage legislation. No meaningful legislation to deal with the pandemic or safeguard elections or voting rights. No meaningful legislation to protect public spaces from people with weapons wanting to cause mass murder, such as El Paso, Las Vegas and numerous schools. Think on that kind of sabotage. Arcane rules of procedure should not endanger the legislative process so it halts entirely.
I have read this article (highly recommend) and believe the options Ornstein describes are good ones. In addition to winning Manchin and Sinema's support, they would bring the Republicans' obstruction and lack of any real governing agenda into the open.
Norm Ornstein is a mature genius with a considered point of view... he will be heard by Manchin... and the Senate will change... filibuster has a place, verbal filibuster, not the push button variety... cutting corners never helps... we must sweat the detail and turn on the lights. Justice Brandeis had it right: sunlight disinfects... when we speak about what we do and why we do it, we hang out there for those that hate. They need a target.
To tolerance... differences are exciting, not threatening... the sooner our sick nation learns that differences are healthy - and tolerance is a virtue... we will learn that the NEED TO BE DIFFERENT is worth a look, too... I am not for conforming, but it makes sense to listen to everyone... and use the views of others - and their habits... habit drives most of it - then think through all of it and ask this question: What are the significant differences among people? An ETS topic c. 1955.. when written essays were required for college admission. of course, they were read and judged by those that fear differences... As one that loves differences, I am challenged by conformity... but we all recognize the need for conformity, too. Ontological, no?
What exactly is the filibuster's place? The Senate can easily permit any and all minority opinions to be fully expressed in the course of debating proposed legislation. Each Senator can have his/her 10 minutes (or whatever) of glory, and then everyone casts the vote they have previously decided on and C-Span watchers get a good show and the majority gets its way. This is called democracy. The Senate could even add an extra period of debate if 40 Senators requested it, and that might be another 10 minutes of glory for each Senator and then... they all vote and the majority gets its way. This too would be democracy. This is what our country is all about and why our Constitution contains a bill of rights. Yes, the minority have their rights and must be heard, but the majority decides whether or not to pass a bill. Democracy again.
At some point the will of citizens who cast their votes in free and fair elections must prevail. For historical reasons involving the difficulty of getting slave states and non-slave states to agree to a unifying constitution, our system of government is already well-rigged for minority rule. The design of the Senate itself guarantees that voters from sparsely populated rural states have more power than voters from states with denser populations and larger urban areas. This is by Constitutional design and is most undemocratic. Do we really need to hang onto a mere Senate rule that makes our government even less democratic than the founding fathers intended? What possible good can come from a filibuster? What American ideal does it help us realize? About the only answer Republicans can give is "Under the circumstances the filibuster can enable us to keep Joe Biden and the Democrats from passing legislation their supporters want so that enough of them will be disappointed and vote GOP in 2022 that we can get power back and try to keep the Democrats from ever getting power again." How far we have fallen.
Norm Ornstein may well be a "mature genius" but his recent article in the Atlantic - while adorned with interesting historical tidbits - is limp, noncommittal. He seems to not know what he really thinks about the filibuster. What does he want our nation to become post-Trump?
I apologize for re-posting a reply I made to a comment above, but it is in response to your request:
have considered the filibuster as a mechanism that recognizes that minority opinions exist and deserve some level of respect, especially of those views are passionately held. It provides a right to the minority to express their beliefs. That said, the change in Senate rules allowed the minority to dominate and killed any need to negotiate. (Remember the episode from the original Star Trek where two enemies agreed to a virtual war, where an attack was announced by one side and the enemy would randomly designate a predetermined number of people to be put to death painlessly. That agreement eliminated the destruction of property and infrastructure, bu it also ended the motivation to negotiate and made the war interminable.) By returning to the old rule, the Senate can dominance of the minority and reestablish the art of negotiating.
Good morning HRC, I have been reading through the comments inspired by your newsletter today in which you state pretty clearly that the filibuster is standing in the way of the proposed voting rights bill passed by the House, and that this legislation is at the top of your "must-pass- the-Senate" list. I completely agree with you, but I cannot understand why so many readers seem to prefer some sort of cosmetic change to the filibuster, of a face-saving way to keep the filibuster, or a filibuster that just looks like our present filibuster but really isn't, or a filibuster requiring 40 Senators to keep it going rather than 60 to vote cloture. There are other variations on this theme, as well.
But does anyone have any doubt as to what Trump and today's GOP would do right now if they had the smallest possible simple majority in the Senate? They would have ditched the filibuster on day one, and they would have already cut taxes even more for the rich, reinstituted poll taxes and selective civics testing for potential African American voters, banned wind and solar power development and provided funding for a new super highway up the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon. (Hey DEMs, you want infrastructure? Well stick this up your....).
What are we afraid of? Joe Manchin and the other RepubliDems can be convinced to live without this freaking filibuster. This will be their claim on posterity.
"You remember Joe Manchin?" "Who?" "Y'know, the guy who agreed to give up the Senate filibuster, which made it possible for Joe Biden to save America from Trump and those weirdos." "You mean the guy who made it possible for me to get a good job installing solar panels so my children wouldn't have to die in the coal mine or get black lung disease? That Joe Manchin?" "Yup, that's the one."
I believe the hesitation to get rid of it altogether is because of the delicate balance we continue to hold in the Senate. If things should flip in the Republican direction, they would simply roll back everything Biden is getting done right now. I think the compromise, forcing it back to the uncomfortable 'stand and talk until you are blue in the face' is not a bad alternative for the moment.
Shelly, someone has misunderstood something... The filibuster is simply a rule in the Senate that permits unlimited debate of proposed legislation unless a Senator makes a motion asking for "cloture", at which point there is a vote, and if 60 Senators vote in favor of cloture, the debate ends and the legislation under consideration is put to a vote. A simple majority, which is to say a one-vote margin, passes the bill or defeats it. So, a party that hold 41 seats in the modern Senate can, by voting against cloture, effectively prevent passage of any bill except one designed to satisfy the rigid and somewhat complex requirements of another parliamentary mechanism, called "reconciliation". If you already know all this, please forgive me, but if "things should flip in the Republican direction" as you suggest, because the filibuster can be instituted, eliminated or reinstituted by a simple majority of the Senate at any time, it makes no difference to a future GOP majority if today's DEM majority decides to eliminate the filibuster in order to be able to legislate. They will do whatever the Constitution permits them to do, and our Constitution makes no mention of any filibuster, providing for a simple majority except in cases of proposed constitutional amendments or the override of a presidential veto. The real issue is whether the filibuster is a proper part of our democracy where we have been brought up to trust the results of voting, be it in elections or simply deciding whether we, as a group (any group, even a group of 3 people) will decide to do this or do that, and if the "thats" win by one vote, then everyone agrees to do that, not this. We Americans get all this with our mother's milk, so to speak. The filibuster - one of many anomalies in our democracy - had its heyday in the middle of the last century when it was used with considerable success by southern Democratic Senators - known as Dixiecrats - to prevent passage of civil rights legislation. As the 12 year-old son of a Labor Department lawyer working for JFK and LBJ, I was pretty well versed in some of this stuff, and I remember hoping with all my heart that a cloture motion would pass. And it did!
So I cannot see any point in anyone talking until blue in the face, unless he is the handsome Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", a really great film if you have never seen it, by the way.
Interesting. We watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington nearly every Presidents Day--well known in my house, always loved that movie. My understanding (perhaps wrong--no problem with you educating us here, this is awesome) was that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans have been using the filibuster to block any bill by Obama, and now Biden. I believe the Democrats cannot get rid of the filibuster due to Manchin and Sinema right now, so making it more difficult to be obstructionist--more uncomfortable--seems like a good route. Even if it wasn't Stewart talking until he is blue in the face, I wouldn't mind forcing these rich, spoiled Senators to actually show up and talk in the Senate about why they support it--or read from Dr. Seuss ad nauseum.
They need to pay personally for that kind of obstruction and prove their case in front of the American people--or look even more foolish than they do now if they can't bring some persuasive facts to the floor. And I thought the fear is that if it flips, the Republicans do NOT restore it, which might give the Democrats the same McConnell style control, but simply drive everything through on a very slim majority, that would be a disaster, since even in our current delicate balance, Republicans are representing 41 million less citizens with each vote.
Hi Shelly. I guess your take on the filibuster depends a lot on what you think the consequences might be if Biden and the Democrats are unable to fulfill their campaign promises between now and the 2022 midterm elections. If you think the attack on the US Capitol was somehow benign, or that Trump's big lie about how the election was stolen from him is somehow innocuous, then you might also think that the GOP would never in a million years try to change our democracy into an authoritarian state and run it mainly for their own benefit. You know, turn it into a dictatorship. I mean it has never happened in well over 200 years, right?
But if you are worried that this is not some fantasy nightmare but a real possibility due in part to our demographics, in part to our history going back to the Civil War and beyond, in part to changes in the way information is generated and transmitted in our smartphone addicted society and in part to the enormous disparity of wealth between the very rich and everyone else - well there are lots of theories as to what is really happening in the American psyche - then current GOP attempts to restrict voting aimed mainly at African Americans and other groups who tend to vote for Democrats should greatly disturb you. In fact, I imagine it does, and you would like the Congress to pass legislation that makes voting fair and easy for every eligible citizen. And this can happen if all Senate Democrats (and the Vice President) vote for it, but if the filibuster remains in effect, the Democrats will be unable to pass this and most other legislation.
I think that the Democrats have a two-year window of opportunity to pass transformative legislation that will help many millions of Americans to lead much better lives, and on paper they have the votes in Congress to do it, though a 1-vote majority makes this difficult in the best of circumstances. Also, it appears that the GOP - rather than participating in this in some positive way - will do everything they can to block any and all Democratic legislation, causing the Biden presidency to fail in much the same way they caused the Obama administration to fail, and then retake both House and Senate in 2022 and prepare to retake the White House in 2024. So, there is an obvious reason why most Democrats want to eliminate the filibuster. What I find odd is that any Democrats want to keep the filibuster. In the past its most important use was to prevent civil rights legislation during the Jim Crow period, and then it was mainly used by southern Democrats. More recently the GOP controlled Senate has used the simple threat of a filibuster and McConnell's parliamentary skills to keep most legislation passed by the House from even being considered in the Senate. But the filibuster is not in the Constitution, which calls for votes in the Senate to be by simple majority except in the case of proposed amendments to the Constitution or overrides of presidential vetoes.
So the filibuster is an anomaly in any case, and any Senate majority can get rid of it whenever they want, just takes 51 votes. By the same token, any Senate majority at any time - DEM, GOP, Bipartisan, it doesn't matter - can reinstate it or invent some other rule if they have 51 votes. So the worry that if the DEMS get rid of it, then so will the GOP when they're in power, is just silly. Of course the GOP would vote to have the filibuster or not based on what they think is advantageous for them at any given moment, and the Democrats ought to do the same, and we should just get used to having the majority rule as set out in our Constitution. The only way to eliminate the filibuster once and for all would be to amend the Constitution, an impossible task under present circumstances.
The bottom line is this: If you want Joe Biden and the Democrats to pass all or most of the legislation they have proposed, you should let them know that you want them to eliminate the filibuster.
So you are preaching to the choir here. Totally on board with wanting to pass HR1, and I realize the gravity of the moment. HR1 can't pass with the filibuster active--BUT from what I have been reading, the Dems cannot get to that 51 to eliminate it. Without that, what is a realistic alternative? Making it really, really uncomfortable for the Republicans to play that game--apparently that change to the rule is acceptable to Manchin and hopefully Sinema as well.
I understand I am preaching to the choir. I find it disturbing that - given the stakes - the DEMs cannot eliminate the filibuster, and if Joe and Kyrsten intend to keep the filibuster simply to force GOP Senators to stay up all night for days on end and do their best Jimmy Stewart imitations, I would like to understand why. What is the point of having a political party if - in an existentially perilous moment for both the party and the nation - the DEMs can't all be on the same page? They should work out their differences in private, agree to disagree, then all vote together. This is no more and no less than what the GOP has been doing (with a few rare exceptions - John McCain comes to mind) for some time now. There is nothing about the filibuster - besides its convenience for the minority - that can justify passing up the opportunities afforded to the DEMs to pass essential legislation. I think many ordinary folks who put enormous effort into getting a DEM majority in the Senate will wonder whether it was really worth it, and this is the surest way back to a Trump dictatorship. Don't know what more I can say.
On what do you base your opinion that Joe Manchin 'can be convinced to live without this freaking filibuster'? Do you think that Schumer and others closer to him haven't tried talk Manchin out of his support for it? Given what is at stake, HR. 1, for instance, Joe sees another option to have his cake and eat it, too. Fiddle with the filibuster, 'make them (the Republicans) suffer' and pass vital legislation without sacrificing the filibuster. The minority will have to work much harder to filibuster, while making it easier for the majority to pass at least part of its legislative agenda. Norm Ornstein's thorough and deep understanding of legislative tools, has provided the democrats with a couple of options. If you are interested a short history of the filibuster, here's an article by Ornstein about it:
Well, I have read Mr. Ornstein's article, and it seems like a pretty clear argument against the filibuster. That eliminating it in the House may have lead to the Spanish-American war is interesting, though perhaps this is not relevant to trying to pass voting rights legislation while the minority party attempts to reinstate Jim Crow at the state level. I think we are in the midst of an emergency, and the filibuster may prevent us from saving our democracy from Trump's GOP.
I hope Joe Manchin - all politicking aside - believes that all Americans 18 or older have a right to freely and easily cast a ballot in any election for which they are eligible to do so. I cannot imagine that this basis for democracy itself is not more important to him than almost anything else. But if he wants to hold out for promises of some special benefits for his constituents - I can think of several the suffering citizens of West Virginia are entitled to and should receive in fairly short order under the Biden administration in any case - I hope he still has, shall we say, his eyes on the prize.
If on the other hand, fear of losing his Senate seat is his prime motivation in not helping President Biden do what Americans elected him to do, then I have no sympathy for him and regret he is a Democrat. I think Joe Manchin should be man enough to choose whether to eat his cake or to have it.
They’ll fiddle with it enough to pass HR. 1, and other significant bills on Biden's agenda. Raise the Wage (hike minimum wage) will be much more difficult as there isn’t even a Democratic consensus.
I live near WV. I can tell you without a doubt it is the fear of losing his Senate seat. Manchin is more red than blue at the core. You are not being realistic thinking Manchin will do the right thing here. He won't.
Currently, the filibuster takes the form of a threat to filibuster.
But there are threats and threats… Threats are two-edged weapons.
Given all the criminal actions engaged in by the previous president and his accomplices, a sword of Damocles hanging over every head must be just for starters. Starters. Beyond those… straitjackets, handcuffs and perp walks.
This is something about which I have been talking for a while now. The Democrats have two years (less now) to get things done. The new Voting Rights Act; statehood for Puerto Rico and/or D.C.; a long overdue hike in the absurdly low minimum wage. All of this needs to get done before the next election.
If the items mentioned above were Republican priorities, you can be sure they would do whatever necessary to pass them. They need to be faced down that our government can work for everyone, not just the wealthy.
Agreed. And, I just don't understand the lack of urgency on the Democrats' part with respect to these issues. We readers all seem to understand their importance. Why can't the people in the House and Senate understand that as well?
Thank you, Lynell, for bringing up the Amazon boycott. As a small business owner in rural area of NH, I like to take every opportunity to discourage people from using Amazon at all. There are too many reasons why to list here and I suspect most of you know them anyway. Other than sheer convenience for consumers, there is nothing healthy about the company or the business model. Please, please, please! Support your local bookstores, many of whom will ship to you if needed, music, clothing, kitchen, craft and gift stores. Yes, they will always be more expensive. Buy less if funds are limited. If we don't do this, we will all be at the mercy of Amazon for perpetuity. Amazon is not going away, but we can limit its power and retain the vibrancy and diversity of small business America if we have the will.
I have stopped using Amazon for non-book purchases, but I need Kindle books because my eyesight is so poor. Are there alternatives? My local bookstore has e-books but the app needed to read them gets really poor reviews.
Check out Overdrive/Libby at your local library. Most of my reading is via kindle or other reader apps as I live in Mexico and my access to English language books is almost nonexistent. I use Overdrive via Denver Public Library.
I have a friend who specifically seeks out Black owned bookstores to order all her books from. I've done the same when ordering musical things (i.e. sousaphone bits or mouthpieces) and motorcycle parts.
It's good to have solidarity on the Amazon boycott. Don't even type the Amazon URL, let alone check orders or shop. If anyone needs books this week -- and beyond -- try Better World Books.
“Georgia lawmakers have advanced a measure [An Act to comprehensively revise elections and voting – SB 241] that would significantly curtail voting access after a record number of voters propelled Democratic victories in the 2020 race.”
Stacey Abrams commented:
“In the last two election cycles, we saw a dramatic increase in the number of voters of color who voted by mail, the number of young people who used early voting, the number of African Americans who voted on Saturday and Sunday. We saw unprecedented levels of turnout across the board. And so every single metric of voter access that has been a good in Georgia is now under attack.”
I wrote a letter to President Biden last night asking why S-1 has not been mentioned in the last two Press conferences in which Jen Psaki listed the Administration’s priorities.
Why is Election Reform not mentioned on the list of Administration priorities on the White House website?
The filibuster is a huge issue here because S-1 will be one of – if not the - most contentious issues in the 117th Congress. I can’t imagine it will pass without some change to Senate rules.
The President will likely sign the Covid Relief measure today or tomorrow and then move on to his next agenda item. He may believe that getting into the fray over S-1 would threaten Infrastructure, Health Care, Environmental and other initiatives – I don’t know. But, I would certainly love to be a fly on the wall of the Oval Office right now.
A fly on the wall of the Oval Office will probably hear this: “let’s stay quiet about HB1 and SB1. Let’s keep our thoughts on the subject under the radar. The higher the profile, the bigger the target.”
It's good to have the stakes laid out plain and clear. I think Manchin is positioning himself to maximize his own influence; he loves having all DC come courting. Nevertheless, he does want his party to make progress, so he is willing to tinker with the filibuster. I shudder to think about what happens without it if the GQP wrenches power away from the Dems in 2022 or 2024.
Real long lasting human misery as a result of not holding the secessionists truly accountable for the Civil War. I grew up in NC, and the history l was taught left out or whitewashed so many facts like the war was not fought over slavery, as one example.
True. I shudder to think of a future in which all of America is under that kind of control. I want better for my grandkids. What can we do to push for ending filibuster and passage of HR1? I live in MA and, since my state is solidly democrat, feel like there isn’t much I can do that would be helpful since leadership doesn’t need to be convinced to support HR1.
For the first time in my life I donated to out of state Senators in the GA runoff. I also sent out donation links to my friends who did the same. We need to identify key races in 2022 and fundraise for the strongest Democrats. And get the vote out. This will be my singular political focus.
That's exactly what I did and will continue to do. I live in Texas and until we toss Fled Cruz and Crooked Cornyn out, I have no representation at the senatorial level. At all.
Karen, what is MA doing at a state level to change/limit voting rights? NH is one that has introduced all sorts of suppression bills. Even though we sent Dems to DC we have GOP controlled state legislature (ridiculously huge one at that) and all my reps are racist, misogynistic gun loving not so good old red neck boys who are all about making it harder to vote. For the first time in my life, I'm thinking of moving out of NH, but I'm still working and my husband owns a business here, and all my friends are here. It would be a lot to give up.
MA is one of the easiest US states to vote in. NH is different from other New Eng states, with a long, strong tradition of conservatism (cf. Manchester Union-Leader). But it's been shifting in a more liberal direction, partly due to MA residents relocating to southern NH.
According to th Brennan Center website, MA has 9 bills that would restrict voting rights. I didn't check them out as I have enough to do here in NH, but just following up on this thread in case Karen or anyone else from MA wants to do so.
Aha! You live in Massachusetts. Contact your D.C. reps and thank them for their good work. Give them a little story about your life that can "ring their bells" in a memorable way.
I bet they like appreciation just like the rest of us.
For all the Pollyannas who have been posting that we have to be nicer to the other side, I post the 43 GOP controlled legislatures currently working to undermine if not destroy the democracy that allegedly underpins this constitutional democratic republic. Anyone want to try "nice talk" with those people? In the current situation, those people are The Enemy. They have delcared war on the country, whether anyone here likes it or not. Nice talk and longings for bipartisanship don't work with wolverines.
TC, you are sometimes a bit blunt, but I always respect your opinion, and mostly agree with you. Today, I TOTALLY agree with you. I don't want to see the Democratic Party turn into a more liberal version of the Republican Party, but for now, I think the big stick needs to come out. I seriously cannot wrap my brain around how we got to another phase in our history where the "leaders" in our states are trying to take us backward into a time where prejudice is the norm and if you aren't white, you shouldn't have the same rights. Back to pretending oil will last forever and alternative energy isn't needed; a time where climate change is completely ignored, and so are killer viruses. And back to a time where lies flow like honey out of the mouths of demagogues that we have allowed to take power because it is easier to believe their BS than it is to fight for equality and the rights of all people. I really really don't want to go back there again. And I don't want my grandchildren to grow up in that poison. I agree, nice talk and longing for bipartisanship just feeds their rhetoric and the hatred that comes out of it. We can and must do better, and we are seriously running out of time.
"Sometimes?" Lol.
Nice Syd you got a smile out of me 😉
I do not think they are trying to take us backwards in time. I think this country has never really moved on from the Civil War division. People hate “other.” It is present and fully thriving in this country.
Sadly, I have to agree. Here I though all naive 20-something that I was back then, that the fights we won back in the 60s were permanent.
Agreed‼️ We are all one.
“Today, I TOTALLY agree with you.”
Republican leadership has proved themselves unworthy of careful consideration or bipartisan negotiation. It’s time for Democrats to lead. Republicans can either follow or get out of the way. What we can no longer allow is their obstruction. America awaits our action; end the filibuster and get on with governing.
We also need to let our Democratic Senators and Representatives know that bipartisanship is not a high priority for us. I've written to mine (Murray, Cantwell, Larsen) at least twice now that I don't care about bipartisanship at this point; I do care about getting things done.
T: Yesterday’s Letter recounted the March to Selma. The use of a most powerful force of nonviolence. Sit-ins, disruption of economic activity, voter registration drives, etc - all set against the threats of ropes and nooses, dogs and kidnappings ...
These efforts were based on love and ‘just anger’. There was no attempt to falsely carry on "nice talk”. This movement begins within one’s heart. A moral strength lived within people who acted so courageously.
So I felt a need to clarify, for myself in this spirit of the March to Selma, that I see no need to disparage and insult another person or a group of people on this board, as I had done. I agree with you about everything you have stated about the actions of the GOP. But please do not mistake my intention to be less significant than another in our struggle.
I feel it does me, imho - no good to waste my mental energy on creating within me a life of fear, hatred and an obsession of The Enemy. Ironically, the pastor of the home church for King, Rev Raphael Warnock, is now a US Senator from Georgia! Senator Warnock has the moral force with him!
Fittingly, the man who has stayed above the political infighting, Joe Biden, now sees soaring approval ratings, as he simply makes the moral case for the survival of our democracy. Biden will be the guide for our collective march, arm-in-arm, toward a more just society. Appropriately, Biden takes the moral high ground, by starting, “I am the president for all Americans, whether you voted for me or not. I will be your president”
What a breath of clear, fresh air, after too many years of angst, hatred and dissonance! Biden’s approval proves that a kind heart gathers unknown friends and allies.
I agree that we must not become obsessed with the opposition. However, I also agree with TC's belief that the current majority in the Republican party is dangerous to this nation and its citizens - all of them, even if they haven't realized it yet. I am thrilled with President Biden, and his remaining above the fray is political genius, as well as a sign of his decency and honor. However, Biden always has a Plan B in case his staying above the fray doesn't work. I believe it translates to walking softly, but carrying a big stick.
Well, if we are going to compare Biden first to FDR, like everybody in the news is doing now, and then to Teddy Roosevelt, he’s going to have a hell of a legacy.
That’s funny, but when I was writing that Biden is probably the best president of my lifetime, I had to consider JFK and Eisenhower. I was too young to know them or what they were doing and I haven’t researched them: I’m not a historian. Trust me, six weeks ago I had no idea that I would be praising Biden like this. I am not raving about him, I don’t feel that level of adoration in me. I am just watching these words come out, in astonishment, because I really didn’t have any respect for him.
Biden's delivery lacks the charisma of Roosevelt (FDR) because of his speech struggles, and Kennedy could have been a movie star with his looks and stage presence (and beautiful, patrician Jackie), but more and more I believe that Biden has the chops. I recall Eisenhower's "I like Ike" slogan, but was too young to have any idea whether he was competent. We might be speaking too soon, considering the short time he's been in office, and with so much damage control ahead, but I believe the potential for greatness is there. He has certainly delivered amazingly these last 48 days - enough so that we're beginning to see many in the GOP scrambling to readjust their images, if that's possible. They see the threat.
You could be a journalist. I think you’re talking for upwards of 100 million people in this country alone. You’re probably talking for 80 or 90% of this forum.
Wow, now that's flattery! At my age, and with no training in journalism, I think you're being way too nice, but I am flattered. When Geoff Duncan, our Lt. Governor, boycotted the newest voter suppression legislation in Georgia, I had an aha moment. He sees landmines, and is wanting to have broader appeal, as has Romney. They're betting on rewards if they can manage to lose the Trumpstink. I'm guessing that the entire world is grateful, and a bit surprised at Biden's performance - no Sleepy Joe visible.
You never heard me say be nicer to the other side, that's for damned sure.
I’ve posted here several times in the past that we need to listen to the other side, we need to understand them, and we need to not underestimate them. I am with you, Daria - I have never said be nice to them. Know thine enemy. If you don’t know / understand them you can’t fight or defend against them.
Daria, you surprise me.
And delight me.
Ha! Thanks, Roland!. Why do I surprise you?
I have a good deal of respect for your comments and can identify with much of your personal journey. Most of my family was and is liberal, though my maternal grandparents were as conservative and bigoted as the day is long. Their very narrow opinions made for a lot of friction in my youth including me letting them know how objectionable they were socially and morally. I'm afraid I lacked tact and grace more than I do now and by the time I was 20 had damaged my relationship with them beyond repair. When my grandfather died in 1974 we were on very bitter terms. My relationship with my grandmother improved a great deal but still, by the time she died in the early aughts, there were huge gaps in our relationship because of our personal beliefs. Now, I am constantly at loggerheads with my in-laws. They are wealthy, well educated and viciously Republican. If there has been a silver lining in Covid it's been our inability, (and unwillingness), to travel freely thus reducing my face to face exposure to their ever growing hate. They are in their 80s and 90s and will never change their points of view. All this despite the fact they have a Black granddaughter. They are unwilling to acknowledge how potentially damaging their beliefs are to her future as an American. She is eight. There will come a time, though, if they live long enough, where their bigotry and racism will become more apparent and impactful to her personally. I hope it never goes that far.
“Why do I surprise you?” Thank you for your transparency about yourself. That honesty answers the question. I didn’t have really good words for how to describe your post: sharp, biting, incisive. You just have a wickedly good insight into the whole Republican-Party-Kissing- Trump’s-Ass thing that just happened. Super nice insight.
Your tale about your in-laws: my dad is Republican conservative wealthy and downright stupid. I’m trying to decide what is harder, well-educated bigoted conservative in-laws or Dummkopf conservative bigoted father. The one constant is that they all seem to be rockheads. A jackhammer wouldn’t even do the trick of cracking them.
Ah, well, thanks. I appreciate that. I honestly believe wealthy, well educated bigots inflict a lot more harm in both the short and long run. They have the money to influence and frequently the ability to craft appealing rhetoric that sounds both logical and socially appropriate. They can justify murder if they have a mind to.
A lot of factors have brought me to where I am today. A lot about my childhood and teenage years did not strike me as unusual at the time. The realization that most people didn't have a 5 day a week maid or places to spend the summer just didn't hit home while I was "living in it". I look back on what was normal for my family at and am stunned by how fortunate we were, how much we took for granted. How many assumptions I made. The first huge eye opener was in the summer between my Junior and Senior years. I participated in a summer theater program at Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, MD. I became friends with a Black girl from DC during that summer. One day, she didn't come back to the theater from the restroom. I went to find her because we were reading scenes and we're up next. I found her in the bathroom beaten up, with a wet head, full of bubble gum. Her head had been dunked in the toilet. Several of Montgomery County's finest white girls were responsible. As horrified and angry as I was I cannot begin to understand the pain that young woman felt. I cannot imagine living with that experience embedded in my brain for the rest of my life. Of course, she never came back. And, of course, it didn't make the Post or the Star, because events like that were kept quiet and brushed under the rug. I'd love to tell you that that story is a figment of my imagination, but it's not. I will tell you that it was a huge epiphany for me. Had I seen racism before that day? Yes. Had I ever encountered that level of violence on a personal level before that incident? No. That one day forced me to understand racism viscerally, not just intellectually. It forced me to reevaluate everyone and everything around me. And speak up.
It's good to share this harrowing story, Daria. Hopefully she went past the trauma to become a fierce activist for civil rights.
Daria, I had a little time to read comments this evening. Your story, stopped me from going on. Seeing the attack on your friend appears to be embedded in you. I wasn't a witness as you were, but the ugliness, disrespect and condescension that I saw as a child impressed me to know more. My antipathy to racism seems to be brain wired. Thank you, Daria, for sharing your experience.
Daria this is just brilliant. I have to include lynching and vicious violence in my screeds about the Republican Party being the bastion of the old Confederacy. I have to mention summary killings of Native Americans, by U.S. Cavalry, by settlers, by Spaniards and Texans and Californians and . . . . . . . Whites-first, racism, is not just genteel policy arguments on HCR and in the halls of Congress and state legislatures. Racism is DANGEROUS. Racism is GENOCIDAL. Racism, sexism, gay-ism, kills people. These are not polite conversation. When TC talks about “they pull out a knife, you pull out a gun,” these are not empty metaphors.
TC, easily the best post of the day and possibly your best work here on HCR. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
The last time I saw my grandmother in 1987 she was in her 80s and in a nursing home in Mississippi. I didn’t tell her that I had married a “nigra” woman & don’t know if anyone else in the family let her in on this ‘secret.’ I was her first grandson and sort of favorite. What would be the point? She and her generation were leaving.
I get that.
Hey, I don’t have a problem with anyone nice-talking the enemy. And then while someone is nice-talking them, hit them with the
effing sledgehammer. Pass SB1, eliminate gerrymandering and the other bogus crap, and relegate those people to permanent minority status. All the while people can sweet talk them. Who cares about talk.
Roland, Lynn, there is a danger in all this for the country's defenders: you're dealing with deluders and the deluded. And... this remark of Karl Popper's has become like a jack-in-the-box in my mind:
"To attack a man for talking nonsense is like finding your mortal enemy drowning in a swamp and jumping in after him with a knife."
Someone mentioned the need for thigh boots when wading into this swamp.
Lynell Abbott3 min ago
Hey, Peter. Not sure if you are talking to me here (some people call me Lynn) but just wanted to clarify that my comment went more to correcting the source of the line TC used re pulling a gun over a knife. It wasn't from the movie Raiders, but the movie The Untouchables.
This got me to thinking, since TC is pretty accurate in his comments. So I did a search and came up with this from SNOPES:
"As it turned out, the comment was indeed made by then-Senator Obama at a fundraising event in the City of Brotherly Love, and it was not ignored by mainstream media outlets at the time. The New York Times, reported on 14 June 2008 that:
"Senator Barack Obama was fund-raising in Philadelphia. But he was talking about 'the Chicago way.'
"Channeling the mob drama, 'The Untouchables,' Mr. Obama said in reference to the general election rumble with the Republicans: 'If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.'”
Just FYI: Being a fan of living in a civilized society, I am not invested in the use of either a knife or a gun to make things "right." But I do enjoy the fantasy of a good movie where all kinds of laws are broken in the pursuit of justice. Just sayin'.
"Mr Ness, I do not approve of your methods!"
"Well, you're not from Chicago."
No, Lynell, I seem to have had an attack of the gremlins and don't know where "Lynn" came from. I was responding to Roland and (I guess) Diane Love.
I'd noticed the talk of guns and knives, but the quote from Karl Popper was nothing to do with all that. Just about the difficulties and dangers of dealing with knaves, suckers and their swamp, without getting drawn into it.
I'll admit to making frequent use of other men's sayings, but surely there's no harm in that when they express my thoughts better than I could express them myself. My hackles are raised by secondhand thinking -- when people adopt readymade prejudices. And I don't care whose prejudices we're talking about. I just want to ask people, what do YOU think, what do YOU feel?
That is what I appreciate when reading this thread.
If I said yesterday that, for me, David Carroll was welcome to ask his questions and put his views, I still feel the same way. What I'm not interested in is what his granddad or his party told him he was supposed to think. But the same goes for everyone, from right, from left, from center.
There's no interest in anyone, let alone politicians, who just says the right thing. We need to be one with our word.
(Having said which, I hope I can live up to it!)
Great perspective you have, Peter. I've read your comments. My opinion is you do "live up to it"!
How refreshing to be part of an online community where people quote Karl Popper. Alas, that thoughtful conservative would be a liberal in America's conservative party, or more likely, unwelcome altogether. Alas!
Beware Logical Positivism bearing gifts to world hunger. It is cold hearted.
I don't endorse Popper's views; it's just gratifying that LFAAers operate on an intellectual level high enough to encompass him.
“They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue."
Sean Connery, The Untouchables. Always loved that line!
Sean Connery: the cop who teaches Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) about "The Chicago way."
I always love that line too. TC you’re pulling that line out at exactly the right time. I could be wrong, but it looks like Biden is sweet talking them to their face and stabbing them in the back. Sweetly. Just as you suggest.
Biden has the Republicans’ backs too. They just can’t recognize it. When we remove the knife they might see the reality that they have become better off as a result of his tough love.
We all need to remember that there are Republican politicians, then Republican citizens. Of course, the third subset is Trumpublicans - hopefully an endangered species.
David100%
David! Nicely said! 🏆🏆
His years in politics are serving him well - at least obstruct them or step over them.
Thank you Nancy 🙏
His years in politics are serving all of us magnificently. I did not think I would catch myself saying this, Joe Biden was not my first choice, but he might be the best president I have seen in my lifetime. He is doing everything I would’ve wanted my first choice to do, and more. He is an attack dog. TC, are you seeing what I’m seeing with this Biden character? Does he meet up to your Sean Connery and Harrison Ford standards?
I loved that scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indiana Jones pulls out his gun.
They actually just came up with that on the fly doing the scene. originally, Indy was supposed to use his bullwhip, but Harrison Ford said that all the Han Solo fans who were going to come see the movie weren't going to buy him doing that after he killed Greedo in the good Star Wars movie.
I heard a different story, that he was sick that day and just trying to get through the day. He came up with the idea on the fly to end the scene quickly. I met my first actor ever a month ago, I’ll have to ask her.
I've heard that too.
I now suspect he came up with the story I heard to make it sound more "actorly"
The story I heard is from the era when Indiana Jones was produced, so perhaps you are right. Who knows. I’m not in that industry.
Hey TC, I asked you some questions elsewhere in this great discussion you started. I called Joe Biden an attack dog, among other things, (really? did I say that?) and I actually said that I thought, against my earlier opinion, that he might actually be living up to your Sean Connery and Harrison Ford standard. I was wondering what your take is on that. Like I said elsewhere here, Joe Biden was not my first choice, and I did not think I was going to like him. But now you are bringing the subject up. What’s your opinion?
My first reaction was “but that’s what TFG (the former guy) would and did do.” I’ve got to toughen up and get more ballsy, admittedly an anatomical stretch for me, as does the rest of the Democratic Party.
A Latino professor here in Miami once told his class that having "cojones" applied to either gender.
Thank you Rob! Thank you MaryB! Thank you TC for this great discussion!
Yep and maybe not wait for them to make the first move.
The state legislatures are rolling fast:
"The GOP-led Georgia Senate just voted 29-20 to PASS #SB241, one of the worst voter suppression bills in the country. It would end no-excuse mail voting, increase voter prosecution, and add racist ID requirements. The GOP continues their relentless attack on voting rights."
https://twitter.com/fairfightaction/status/1369052609529716736?s=20
I suspect that the ACLU and many other groups have all the paperwork pre-set for the law suits to start rolling in. It is going to be important to help finance the legal defense funds that are going to be litigating against these New Jim Crow laws.
mark elias!!!
What a setback, Ellie. I pray Stacey et al. will be able to overcome.
Meanwhile, here in Virginia things are looking up:
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/26/971366621/virginia-is-poised-to-approve-its-own-voting-rights-act
https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-voting-rights-act-passes-as-supreme-court-case-threatens-federal-protections/
After reading a story in The Hill (I wait for Letters until the coffee is brewed) on the "surprise retirement" of a half dozen Republican senators, I had the idle thought as I poured the magic bean fluid of "We are going to have to Abrams the s*%t out of those states".
Quote from Matt Damon in "The Martian" where he says he has to "science the s*%t out of his surroundings to insure his survival.
Agree as to making Abrams a verb!
Absolutely. Unlike "Borking," "to Abrams" has a positive meaning.
Ally, this comment makes my day! I’m all about science-ing the s*%t out of stuff, but had never thought of my modus operandi in those terms. And Abrams-ing the s*%t out of several states is my new goal. Let’s go!!
😂👍🏼🙏🏼
And Florida is going in the other direction. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/opinion/editorials/2021/03/02/editorial-desantis-mistakes-election-integrity-voter-suppression/6883048002/
It is with dismay that I read about what is going on in Florida and the other states. I hope donations to FairFight and the Democrats will hep.
The bright side: voter suppression has never been this obvious. Every news article I read calls it what it is, even if it doesn’t always mention the racist underpinning.
This is also creating problems within GA's GOP, as they realise this voter suppression can also hurt THEM. Abrams and GA Democrats are on it, so I don't think it will proceed without a fight. Even Raffensperger and Gov. Kemp oppose restricting mail-in voting. After all, it WAS put forward several years ago by the GA GOP. I don't expect things to necessarily sail through without resistance. It'd be curious to see how H.R. 1, currently before Congress, might affect some of these blatantly discriminatory voting restrictions.
https://georgiarecorder.com/2021/03/09/no-excuse-voting-ban-creates-gop-schism-as-georgia-senate-presses-on/
In case you want to help Abrams:
https://fairfight.com/
Ah yes. Geoff Duncan is boycotting. I smell a run for higher office coming. Kemp has to be careful to not alienate moderate Republicans, suburban women, and the moderate Democrats, since Trumpers want to burn him at the stake.
These are getting beyond ridiculous: GOP proposal in Arizona would reject ballots that are postmarked after the Thursday before an election, even if the ballot arrives at the election office before the close of the polls https://trackbill.com/bill/arizona-senate-bill-1593-early-voting-time-limits-envelope/2009157/
As Bruce Sellers wrote, “This is also creating problems within GA's GOP, as they realise this voter suppression can also hurt THEM.”
Remember: it is by shining the light into the dark corners that you root out the cockroaches and the corruption. Personally I think we have the Social Lepers party on the run. Between the Trumpster versus principled Republican fights, which includes and likely inspired the half dozen recent Senatorial retirements, and the spotlight on racist voter suppression legislation, the Good Side is winning. But I’m with TC and the rest of you: pedal to the metal. Keep the accelerator floored. Keep the aircraft throttle firewalled. GO TEAM‼️🎉❤️
And now Iowa:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/08/politics/kim-reynolds-voting-iowa/index.html
Not sure “nice talk” will be necessary. Their act is slowly becoming irrelevant. Georgia’s potential law is so nakedly racist that it will achieve at best, a Pyrrhic victory.
The struggle will admittedly be long and hard. But the Neanderthals are clearly on the run.
I often wonder, “What is the barrier to entry” to becoming a State (or Federal) legislature. Any state that would pass, or attempt to pass, a law making it illegal to feed, provide water, or in any way give material comfort to people waiting waiting in line to vote, would seem to have searched for the dumbest of the dumb to prop up in a legislative capacity. In the above case the fact that this is the product of panicked, vicious minds is obvious. But it’s not even self-serving. It is simply the capstone on a law that will provide vigorous, determined and highly motivated resistance.
The cracks are already appearing in this minority party. Mitt Romney and others are beginning to embrace the possibility of social programs, etc. So, some of the opposition are realizing that they have to change their game plan. Even though Georgia Republicans are abandoning any attempt to portray themselves as pro-citizen, the Lt. Governor is boycotting this slew of repressive legislation. My guess is that he realizes that there will be tremendous pushback, and he has higher political aspirations that will be in danger That's good, but we need to continue to resist, and relax only a bit when it is clear that the Republicans have abandoned their forays into fascism and have a common goal of representing all citizens, not the interests of big business. As you so aptly stated Eric,, "the struggle will admittedly be long and hard."
Nancy- Your words are true, holding "the enemies of Democracy accountable without apology or being "pollyanna" about this dire attack on Democracy. I wish to emmulate your razor sharp words that surgically expose the cancer of autocracy. Even though you are gracious, no one should mistake you for being Pollyanna.
Jay, thank you so much for the compliments. Yes, I talk way too much, and spend some time "counseling" friends who are much nicer than I when they fret about "how could they do that" and man's inhumanity to man. I'm something of a mild cynic, and while I hope for the best in people and institutions, I see potential pitfalls. True - no Pollyanna here.😉
I don't think they understand nice talk, or even truths that are self evident!
You got that right
I have long believed in the adage (I think it might be a Chinese saying - not sure): one cannot reason with mad dogs. Generally, where I grew up, a "mad dog" was handled with a burst of icy water. What I long for is to ice the GOP. Maybe if these obstructionist ancients have to stand and orate for hours on end a few of them will drop. One can hope.
Being criminalized certainly qualifies as an icy blast of cold. Half a dozen Republican senators retiring, that’s another blow to their collective egos. Ellen, have you seen any of the video of whiners who were at the January 6 Riot and then were placed on the No Fly list, or Richard Barnett’s temper tantrum in court? That’s just the beginning. The biggest wake-up call for them will probably be Donald Trump going to jail. Before that happens, all 800 January 6 rioters will already be arrested. All of this pushback from the justice system and from their corporate funders is a big wake-up call for these smug buffoons.
TC, get your facts straight. First, there are 49 legislatures that can be "controlled" as you put it. Nebraska is a unicameral legislature who's members are voted in nonpartisan.
As of February 1, 2021, 30 legislatures are totally controlled by Republicans with 23 States where the legislature and governorship is Republican. 18 legislatures are controlled by Democrats with 15 States having both the legislature and governor being Democrat. So where did the 43 come from?
When HCR talked about the one-party South from 1878 to the 1960s, she wasn't referring to "Dixiecans" but "Dixiecrats." The Democratic Party has a longer history of disenfranchisement of voting and other rights than the Republicans.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/partisan-composition.aspx#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Southern_United_States#1948:_Dixiecrat_revolt
"The Democratic Party has a longer history of disenfranchisement of voting and other rights"
So what?? That was then, this is now. It's tedious to listen to folks who can't, or won't, distinguish between the Dems of the 1850s or Jim Crow era, and the contemporary Party. It is literally ignorant, i.e. ignor-ant, a deliberate choice to remain uninformed by disregarding facts. After the VRA in 1965, southern Dem vote suppressors migrated to the GOP where they found a hearty welcome. They've spent 50 years perfecting the suppression strategy and STILL won't cease and desist.
Another crucial difference today is that the GQP seeks, not to control or limit democracy, but to destroy it. The mob of filthy, seditious insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol was overwhelmingly Repuglycan; they will wear that badge of dishonor for eternity. It's not necessary to reprise their dismal litany of illegal and unconstitutional actions under Der Pu$$enGropenFuhrer, but anyone who doesn't see the pattern is ignor-ant. Dems have never had anything like the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Hillary identified many years ago. Now, excuse me, I'm off to burn the Confederate flag in public.
E Foner, The Story of American Freedom
A Keyssar, The Right to Vote
L Litwack, Trouble in Mind
D White, To Heavy a Load
I think you missed my point about the problem of one party domination. HCR referred to the time period, not I. And that period was lead by Democrats. I had written more, but chose to delete it.
As for the so what of history, perhaps Foner's 2017 interview in the Nation can shed some light.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/trump-is-just-tearing-off-the-mask-an-interview-with-eric-foner/
I don't deal in abstractions. National one-party rule is an abstraction, far less important than the actual, concrete results of GQP voter suppression and gerrymandering -- the product of one-party domination of red states. Dr Foner is a friendly acquaintance whose work is very familiar to me. Anyone can rummage through his oeuvre to find something that might support their views, especially from an interview which carries less weight than written publications. But his entire career shows that the large majority of his thought runs counter to yours.
I wrote a long reply, posted it, and then deleted it.
First, as I see it, you are dealing in abstractions now. You, and others, have yet to prove that the GOP gerrymanders and that their success in "red" states is a result of such a charge. More importantly, you and others make it sound that Dems have never engaged in such activity. More importantly, as this inane threat started, it's based on an opinion that will be spread as truth. I only pointed out the facts and reassert what HCR stated, one party domination is wrong. We saw it with the Southern Democrats in the South for nearly 100 years. Your better argument would have been, right, but we've learned our lessons and are trying to change.
Second, I've read Dr. Foner's work. Agree with some, not sure I accept other points of view. But, I do agree that we need a usable history to make progress at working towards the goals of our Constitution. Maybe we should adopt the high school requirements of the Germans. Make our students visit slave housings on a plantation or German/Italian/Japanese internment camps (built during the Democratic Presidencies of Wilson and Roosevelt) or walk the streets of disadvantaged neighborhoods/slums/jails/battlefields where Native Americans died, etc. Maybe then they'll realize what our history is really like and make an effort to do better.
Third, and final point, I believe we need to start looking for common ground versus the great divide we now endure. It's hard work, but it needs to be done. And, I believe President Biden's call to end this Uncivil War, one that both parties share in the blame, must be started. That doesn't mean rolling over and playing dead. But, it does mean listening to what others say. Dems hold the national power now. If they want to continue to and disrupt the trend of mid-term elections, the party needs to find a common ground to bring Republicans into their camp. Calling them the GQP isn't it.
Hi Larry.
Damn, I wish I had your post from yesterday.
Ok, on the gerrymandering question, I already mentioned California's history, that's all I know. End of story. The other experts here will have to engage you, and by now, they are reading the current HCR discussion. This page is old news.
I am of the opinion that the Southern Democrat Party bears little or no relation to the modern Democratic Party, but here again, Dr. Richardson or TPJ or Stuart or someone else will have to step in. In Lincoln's election, it was more like Europe is today, a multi-party system instead of a 2-party system, with 4 viable parties competing for representation in the WH. Somehow Lincoln won the election in what I have seen called in California a "jungle" election, which is a free-for-all, with everyone on the same ballot and not separate ballots like a primary election. The Southern Democrats became the party of the KKK, as disaffected Southerners, because it was the party of Southerners to begin with. Then somehow the Southern Democrats became merged with the Democrats, or changed names, I don't know, then LBJ and the Voting Rights Act drove them to the Republican Party.
I've never read Dr. Foner. That's between you and TPJ.
Of course I am in complete agreement with your statement about the high school requirements of the Germans. As far as I'm concerned, getting American high school students out of the classroom and into the field would give them education and knowledge they sorely lack.
Your final point about common ground: of course I agree completely, why else are you and I here having this conversation. I have had my father all my life, and I have engaged (albeit to a limited degree) in his social circle for decades, so I am accustomed to engagement and finding common ground. He and I love each other, even though we have so little in common, as it turns out, politically and socially. But nevertheless common ground is there, kindness, civility, generosity, mutual respect, there is plenty to recommend my father. People rave about him to me all the time.
I have received a bit of blowback, nothing serious but noticeable, here on HCR and elsewhere for taking what are apparently controversial positions. To your point: I think Adam Kinzinger, Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney voting for impeachment the 1st time, and other Republicans I could name, make a lot of sense, and they get my respect. Not my approval necessarily, not my undying love, but my respect. Even McConnell, whose methods I despise, has come out against the criminal Trump.
I hope you are ok with me disparaging 45, because this guy is so dirty in so many ways that it's impossible to keep track. He will need a presidential library just to contain all the evidence. Greg Olear on Substack has done numerous deep dive investigations, and nothing that comes out is ever pretty. Often, when the context is pertinent, I write his name as Tя☭mp because of his partnership with Putin. Remember them in Helsinki? Finland is kinda, sorta, in the Russian sphere of influence. From the Russian point of view, Finland is neutral ground, a fitting place for that meeting. Did we ever think we'd see a president who is friends with the leader of Russia? There is also sex crimes, there is NYC mob history (real estate related), there is financial corruption, each of these categories will require an entire wing in his presidential library.
Dr. Heather Cox Richardson tends to limit herself to what she knows, she has made that very clear, which means U.S. history. Russia is not her area of knowledge or expertise, so she stays on firm ground. However, I do not run this web site, I am not a respected historian with a reputation to uphold, I am merely a student, so I can speak as I please. These named Republicans care about the democracy enough, and are unswayed by the current anti-democratic tide enough, to get my tacit approval. My father voted for Mitt Romney back when he was running against Obama. I would have a conversation with Larry Hogan or Ben Sasse in a heartbeat. They might not get my vote if I were in their district, but hey, they would probably get my dad's vote.
Personally, I don't find it offensive to call the GOP the "GQP." However, I want to set the table with you, and that conversation is quite a bit more controversial than what we have been discussing, so I'll table it for now. I will say this: I do not identify as a Democrat. I may vote Democrat, but that's it, I do not affiliate with parties, although I could call myself a Green, which, curiously and ironically, appeared in Bavaria, the home of my heritage. If the Democratic Party started attracting racists and anti-Semites to its cause, I would disown them in a heartbeat. The man with the shirt that says "Camp Auschwitz" on the front and "Staff" on the back is not my friend. My wife saw that in real time, on TV, on January 6. She is half Jewish, her maternal relatives were wiped out of their town in what is now Belarus by the Germans. That's just an aside, but it's pertinent because it refreshes my other point, that these genteel words in print on HCR's web page may seem divorced from the real world, but they are not. Anti-Semitism wasted millions of lives. I have relatives who fought and died on what Nazi Germany called "the Eastern front," when Russians and eastern Europeans were considered subhumans. So blood is at stake here. Lives at are stake.
Speaking for myself, a party that coddles and takes in money and support from that demographic is not going to make me smile or make me just walk away.
In closing, Larry, I just want to say I am not conflict averse. I have defused tensions here. Not always successfully, but that seems to be my role, much more than being a source of history knowledge. So you can bring up anything with me that you like, anything. I can handle it. If I don't know enough, if my resources are insufficient, I will say so. I am that guy who runs counter to the stereotype: I use maps. I get directions. I read the instructions. I rely on resources and information, and I'm not shy about it. But I also don't accept information blindly, I am acutely aware of the reliability of a source, and even then, you have to remain cautious. For example, I am very skeptical of giving a political news TV show the name "Reliable Sources." Come on. If you just believe what people tell you, you deserve the consequences of being a misguided fool. That's how the Russians view DT, by the way, "a useful fool," a tool.
I stand on firm ground in certain areas, and when I do, you will have to use convincing arguments to get me to agree.
Good talking to you.
Hope your experience here in Dr. Richardson's subscriber community goes more smoothly from now on.
Enjoy the rest of your day and week. My best to you and your family.
Roland
Hello again Larry! I'm at home, on my laptop, I can actually follow the discussion much more easily because of the much larger screen. It's snowing where I live in rural mountainous California, I'm not working tomorrow, perfect time to get back to you. Van Morrison is on Pandora, my wife is playing something called the J.J. Cale music channel, Lord knows what that is, but I love the songs that are playing. We just finished watching latest episode of To Tell The Truth, with Anthony Anderson and his mom Doris.
I am setting a scene to let you know I am a real person. You gave us a ton of information about yourself, but unfortunately I don't have access to it now: I'm sorry you deleted your post, it had a wealth of information. Normally we don't delete posts here, even with errors, we just correct in an add-on post. If I'd known this would happen, I would have copied and stored your words.
Since we are getting to know each other, a few things about me that most of the people here already know: I am 62. White, male and straight. That's important, it turns out, when we are discussing U.S. politics. I am not a FB or Tw or social media user, opposed to the business model. This forum is my first on-line community. Otherwise Greg Olear and Lucian Truscott on Substack, TC referred me to Lucian, and we have text groups in my family, that's it.
My parents were born in Germany and my dad in particular had a front-row seat for the entire Hitler administration, because he is from Munich. Our family lived in Germany in my teens, I knew my pro-Hitler grandmother, visited the paternal childhood home often, visited Dachau once, so I have some education with that period. All my heritage is German. I speak German, and am something of a linguist, certainly a better linguist than historian. I am the first in my immediate family born in this country, 2nd overall behind my 1st cousin Mike, my parents met in San Francisco and had me there. Public school in SF and the metro area, later graduated from a civilian school with an American high school diploma in Germany, college in southern California, engineering degree, Eagle Scout (you can take the boy out of Scouting, but you can't take Scouting out of the man), yada yada yada.
Not a historian, rely on the wealth and depth of knowledge here in this group, and trust me, it is extensive. I do not recommend underestimating that depth of knowledge, TPJ for example is a working history teacher in Boston, Linda Mitchell another history expert, TCinLA (I call him "TC") 20thC and WW2 and military and beyond expert, and the list goes on and on . . .
I am surmising you have been a Republican for a long time, perhaps are now, based on your post. My father is a diehard German-born conservative, and once he arrived in this country, lifetime Republican. Votes like clockwork, watches Fox and reads WSJ regularly. Drives me crazy my entire life, this month I have finally figured him out.
It has taken me a lifetime to discover who I am politically and socially. My wife is from southern California and moved to the SF area as soon as she could, but she could easily have been born in Berkeley, and in fact she lived next-door in Oakland for decades. Some of her closest friends are Cal grads. Her parents are actual Communists. Had to change lifestyle during Joe McCarthy years. Union organizer parents, mom with social worker degree from UCLA, believed in the ideal of communism until disillusioned by the Soviet Union and then abandoned it.
I didn't meet my wife knowing about her politics, that showed up later. I met her in a personal growth environment, what my dad would derisively call a hippie setting.
In context of a recent HCR discussion about Christianity, I found myself posting about my Christian pedigree. I didn't even know I had a Christian pedigree until a few weeks ago. Father raised Roman Catholic in Bavaria, where Josef Ratzinger, the last pope, is from. Went to Sunday School as an elementary school age kid. Even applied to Yale Divinity School in my 20s and got offered full ride scholarship, but changed my mind and took a different direction, aviation technology program. Learned mechanical stuff, machines and engines and aircraft and autos.
I have had more jobs than I can remember, my C.V. would run on for 10 to 20 pages. Transportation and psychology are the biggest themes. Very briefly aviation mechanic, 6 years limo and van driver, and for the last 23 years, trucking, so that's over 30 years in transport.
On this forum, I am testing out my knowledge of politics and society and U.S. history like never before. I'm no dummy, I was first (in my class of just 44) in H.S., but didn't take any history or politics in college, and my WW2 and Nazi Germany knowledge is self-taught.
Most of what I know about U.S. politics I learned in the past 12 months here on HCR and by reading the news. I defer to others constantly. Until now, spurned politics.
Ok, now to your post.
Roland
Oh my. Hey TC, check this out, TPJ’s fuse got lit on your watch.
I’m giving TC the credit, semi-facetiously. Nobody has to agree with that.
Tom, love your passion. 🙏❤️😊❤️
Nice work holding your ground Larry Keeton. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Roland.
Hello Larry. I’m not in a great position right now to give your post the respect it deserves. I’m on the road working, driving truck, with my little iPhone. I think I had to scroll down 12 to 15 times just to read your entire post. For now, I will say this: I am glad that you are being honest about where you stand, and I accept your challenge of providing evidence and reasonable counter arguments to your points. But you’ll have to wait. I’ll give you just one small teaser: is there proof that removing gerrymandering sidelines Republican politicians? No, of course not. I’m not sure it’s provable. However, there is excellent evidence that a goodbye to gerrymandering means a goodbye to Republican power. In California after the 2010 census, a citizens group redistricted the entire state. Lots of public scrutiny of the entire process, tremendous amount of data and information brought to bear to decide exactly where to draw the lines. Widespread public approval of the process. In 2018, out of 53 California House districts, only 7 Republican House members. After 2020 election, I believe 12 Republican House members out of 53. Super majorities in both state legislatures. In California, the republican party as a political force is neutered, an endangered species. Still millions and millions of Republican citizens, just no political power. OK back to work. Thank you for engaging, I’ll get back to you.
“As of February 19, 2021, state lawmakers have carried over, prefiled, or introduced 253 bills with provisions that restrict voting access in 43 states, and 704 bills with provisions that expand voting access in a different set of 43 states.”
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-voting-bills-tracker-2021
ALEC must be busy.
Ellie, that does not mean 43 states are Republican or Republican controlled. In my own state, a blue one with both chambers and governor being Democrat, such bills have been introduced. How they fare time will tell.
MediaBias/Fact Check ranks the Brennan Center as highly factual, but puts the following caveat in their description of the organization.
"These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brennan-center-for-justice/
I only supported the statistic of 43 states in which voter suppression measures have been introduced, as cited by the Brennan Center. I wrote nothing about the legislatures being Republican controlled or projecting how those bills would fare.
As for MediaBias, NY Times and WaPo did not even make their cut of unbiased, but North Korea Times did. MarketWatch has a better graph locating media on a left-right axis and factual-non-factual.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28
TC, your discussion is easily the best of the day and is possibly your best work here on HCR. 🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
All my favorite people are showing up here.
You are welcome. :-)
The state legislatures in red states are having a massive temper tantrum. Courts have to take it on now, and I worry about McConnell's little band of loyalists in there.
THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU 🙏🙏❤️❤️
My whole life I’ve been trying to figure out my dad. I’ve been trying to figure out myself too in relation to him. It has all come together for me.
The root of the conservative world view is maintaining the status quo, maintaining the old society. So now I have no trouble seeing the link between making Mr. Potato Head gender neutral, and ending publication of certain Dr. Seuss books, and banning Confederate flags from NASCAR, and trans toilets, and racism-based voter suppression, and why Trump is their hero, and all of it. The Republican Party, the country club set, the Mercedes and mini-mansion fixation, all of it is my dad and all of it clicks now.
The old society is based in unacknowledged racism, unacknowledged sexism, unacknowledged hetero-ism, and ostentatious & gaudy (and nauseating) status symbol and prestige displays. Even the part Republican politicians being about self-service instead of public service.
My entire life I’ve hated all of it. Retch. And now I can identify it clearly and see all of it.
The many disparate issues and aspects, the seemingly disconnected rants and complaints, all make sense to me now. All of it fits together perfectly.
Thank you so much Dr. Richardson. Thank you so much all of you. You have been an invaluable catalyst in my education. I owe all of you a great debt of gratitude.
Roland, your personal journey certainly has a solid ring of truth for me. I grew up in a family of privilege, and "practiced"all that goes with it. We called my father "the general" because he ruled the house with an iron, bigoted, misogynist, xenophobic fist. Somehow, I managed to escape most of that except not totally realizing my own white privilege. Not so all my family. I wish there were more folks in the world, including the fools in Congress, who would take the time to reflect as you have.
Very touching. Thank you Pam 🙏
Roland you are so right. Canary in the coal mine. Change is a-comin'. I'm not done with this yet, but here is a concluding snippet:
"Indeed, we are walking backwards into the future. I look to indigenous tribes such as the Lakota in North America or the Musica in South America for examples of large social groups. The ancient worldview where fear is replaced with hope, inner truths are valued above all, community wellness and resiliency is a prime driver, and equality of the masculine and feminine will dominate our social relations."
Roland, so much of what you say rings true for me, too. I think we share the German immigrant father, too, and I never discount how his experiences here during the war, as a young boy, shaped his world view, never mind his typically German domineering mother. But. What I think you get wrong is the mini-mansion, ostentatious wealth part. As a prep school girl, and a peripheral participant in the country club cotillion set, ostentation was never part of it. For people with true inherited wealth, that was frowned upon, and I assume still is. We all wore battered Top Siders, drove old volvos, and that was the public face of it. Old money didn’t flaunt. I think in part that’s why Trump was rejected by NY society - he is nouveau riche to the core, and the antithesis of what they are. I much prefer the university circle we move in now, and have left that world behind, so maybe things have changed. But I doubt it.
Hello Kathy. Love love your message. My ex-wife is Boston blue blood and NY Vanderbilt old money. I know exactly what you mean, I had quite the education into that world. I also went to a private school, so I know about that tattered jeans look. But think about it. The original racists were royalty and slaveowners and industrialists. The richest people. The ones trying to rule everything and everybody. They thought they owned the world, and at the height of the British Empire and the Spanish Empire, they effectively did. Ignore what I said about ostentation. Just think hideous amounts of wealth. The racism and sexism of extreme wealth is legendary. That’s all I have to say.
Well said, Roland! Power is hard to come by, but even harder to relinquish. For over 400 years, the white minority has used hate and fear to suppress the 'mudsills' of society that outnumber them. We were naive to think that the election of Barack Obama was the beginning of a post-racial America. At best it was an acknowledgement of the impact of the civil rights movement of the mid Twentieth Century. But that's the short game, and the long game is on their side.
President Obama's election was not the beginning of a post-racial America, but was rather the rebirth of Jim Crow. My friends on the "right" are saying that Obama's presidency "recreated" racism. I say it ripped the scab off of a badly infected wound and we got left with all the nastiness from such a wound.
What Obama’s presidency exposed was the failure to deal with America’s GREAT Big Lie: that white people are superior to people of color. We did not address that lie after the Civil War, and it came roaring back in 1877. We have continued to be negatively impacted by that GREAT Big Lie to the extent that one political party doesn’t even want our government to be successful and perfect the union for everyone.
Before the 21C, Andrew Johnson was definitely the Worst President Ever. He almost singlehandedly killed Reconstruction by requiring only abolition from seceded states to rejoin the Union, while enabling their worst practices. The resulting Black Codes were slavery in all but name. This despite a Congress and admin that clearly supported Freedpeople's rights. For several years the Grant admin tried heroically to defend them, but the so-called Redeemers ultimately re-entrenched white supremacy.
Always appreciate your historical perspective TPJ 🙏
Thank you Jennifer, really nicely stated 🙏
Fresh air might help heal the pustulant wound. We are short sighted creatures. We want it all now and this is a very long game. As the Italians say, piano piano piano.
Conservatives have been playing the long game since Ross Perot received almost 19% of the vote but not one Elector in 1992. That was when the conservatves decided to take over the Republican Party. The Progressives did not start the long game until the year 2000 when Gore and Bush refused to allow Nader to even attend the presidential debates.
Independent votes represent hundreds of thousands of voters.
Http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/third-party-candidates-having-outsized-impact-election-n680921
Roland you're one of the people who I think of as the "canary int he coal mine" members of this conversation group. When you erupt I know to get super worried.. Although I am now one of the very privileged, both sides of my family were definitely hardscrabble when they arrived here from their various places of origin. The good news is that, when they did achieve financial and social success they did not lose that understanding of where they came from, perhaps because neither side was mainstream in most ways that rendered someone acceptable to Mittle Amerika. I never had to struggle against the complacency and smugness of white privilege in my family so I had that secure space, even cocooned inside the privilege my father and (on the maternal side) my great-grandfather worked so hard to achieve. I think it made a difference. I am so grateful I don't have to fight with family members about politics! It was hard enough dealing with my EX-spouse about it . . .
Here’s the mystery, Roland. Did Hasbro castrate Mr. Potato Head so no one could see his genitals? That would be the extreme remedy. Why didn’t they just paint him some pants? I think there should be an investigation.
Well summarized Roland.
🙏
There is power in finally being able to put a name to discomfort and discontent that eats away at us.
You ain’t kidding
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV). “The filibuster should be painful, it really should be painful and we've made it more comfortable over the years,” Manchin said yesterday on the Fox News Channel. “Maybe it has to be more painful.” Well, hot dog. I wonder who lit a fire under Senator Manchin's behind? He surely didn't do this of his own volition.
And so, after the RNC tells Donald that they CAN use his image they fluff him up by booking events at his dreadful, tacky club in April. This is how Trump has managed to live his entire life - by bending people over a barrel so far and so hard that they have to play his game. Republicans aren't just deplorable they're weak-willed, lily-livered chumps. Disgusting. I'm going to bed. Good night Heather, good night one and all. Sleep well.
Disgusting, indeed. For when you wake up...Morning, Daria!!
Morning, Lynell! Morning, Daria! Morning, all!
Good morning, Karen!
Oops, It's afternoon now. Afternoon, Karen!!
And I love all your posts Lynell ❤️❤️
und auch Ihre, Roland...Morning!!
I love this post Daria
Thanks, Roland!
It is beyond pitiful that even with what TFG has done to effectively end the Republican party, they continue to pay him homage and increase his coffers. I've got Sicilian blood in my veins, and I guarantee you we would never let anyone do this! Tony Soprano, where are you when we need you?
Hope you had a restful night...
Thanks. It was too short but restful nonetheless.
Yes, the filibuster...
Option A) Leave things the way they are, so meaningful election reform, infrastructure improvement, existentially necessary legislative responses to climate change (the elephant in the room), police reform, common sense gun and immigration laws, reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, fairer wealth distribution via more progressive taxation, eventual elimination of the Electoral College (and the list is very long given how little good governance we have had since, well, LBJ) WILL NOT HAPPEN under this administration, leading to significant GOP gains in the 2022 mid-terms. End of American democracy.
Option B) Eliminate the filibuster (or return it to the Jimmy Stewart model, though why we would do that - except to save face for a few Demopublicans - I can barely imagine) and pass all of the above or even just a few of the above and take it to the voters in 2022. Joe Biden will be a national hero in the mold of FDR and Kamala Harris will carry on in the same vein in 2024. The GOP will either change or disappear. Trump will die in prison.
We have seen that government by reconciliation and presidential decree cannot do enough and causes even greater political division than the already unsustainable variety we have now.
This is not the moment to try to return to a Reaganesque-Clintonesque "normal". No, it is time to live up to our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and institute - finally - government of, by and for the people.
This may be our last chance.
I'll take option B. We The People, All Of Us This Time, Every Time, For All Time.
I’m with option B as well, I say Game On, we didn’t flip the senate here in GA and rid ourselves of the insipid occupant of the WH only to watch it fritter away, the just passed recovery bill is only the beginning, of the changes we need to make to reorient this nation so that it benefits all of us, not just the people that will never be able to spend the money they already have.
Option B for me too.
I'm with B. We have the chance to govern...Let's do it! Let's not let this opportunity slip away. Stacie Abrams pulled off a miracle in Georgia. We cannot squander the hard work and hard won votes of Democrats and Progressives. Let's start burying fascism and greed and protect the vote. Is there a risk if we abolish the filibuster? Yes, but a greater risk if we achieve nothing in the next two years. Offense is very often the best defense.
WE need to fix this NOW! You all know that if...or when...Republicans gain control of the Senate again, the filibuster will be gone in a New York minute!
The future of the fillibuster is indeed an important issue, about which two things need to be clarified: (1) This is NOT a constitutional question, but "only" about the rules of the Senate. It's remarkable, and difficult to explain to folks who aren't polit-junkies, that so much hangs on that kind of issue; (2) if Prof. Richardson is correct, and I believe she is, the slogan "end the fillibuster" is clearly based on a fundamental misunderstanding. If Sen. Manchin is right, and surely he knows what he's talking about in this case, the issue is NOT ending the fillibuster altogether, but restoring the "painful" fillibusters of yesteryear. Do Democrats really want to go there? Those southern fillibusterers (what a word) were nominally also Democrats, but not the kind the modern party wants to have anything to do with. the accurate slogan would appear to be "end the supermajority, restore majority rule in the Senate". Unfortunately, the train has already left the station, so "end the fillibuster" it will be in media-land. Disappointment on the left is preprogrammed. Besides, if the DEMS somehow manage to lose control of both houses in 2022, they will surely wish they had retained this weapon. Joe Biden has a point; be careful what you wish for.
Yes, “End the filibuster” is as unfortunate a slogan as “Defund the police”. But I agree that it should at least be returned to the rules that require a senator to actually stand there and talk, on topic. No more EZ Pass.
As someone who by any American standard I know of is way out on the left on most issues and as a white 69 year-old man who totally agrees with the objectives of the Black Lives Matter movement, I think "Defund the police" is one of the dumbest political slogans ever coined. Who came up with this? Roger Stone? Sure, as a leftie I see where this comes from and that it doesn't literally mean "disband the police", but isn't the idea to convince voters who may not be knee-jerk progressives or African Americans that there is a serious problem with how policing is done in most of America, that it is shot through with racism and abuse, and that the legal system and our best wishes alone cannot make things better, so we need to REFORM the police? Just asking...
As a slogan, "end the filibuster" may not be the greatest, but at least it's not the worst.
I think it should be "Demilitarize the police."
I have tried using the word "refocus" the police, often with "let them do what they do well, and leave the "catchall" responsibilities that have come with the continuing decline in social, mental, scholastic revenues and make everything from truancy to homelessness to mental illness into police problems. Cops don't do mental health treatment well, nor do they have the training or temperament to handle social issues, especially with no resources to offer.
Sure, "defund the police" is misplaced. But remember how high feelings ran after we lost George Floyd? Those towering emotions cannot be denied. The hostility DTP evoked shows how potent it is: hit 'em in the budget, it's the only place they feel anything. Tat is the proper starting point of discussion.
NB, I wish I had been part of LFAA back in the June Days. Community was so important then. It always is.
It’s not always true that they don’t have the capability. I have a police officer in my family who is good at it. But it is difficult and it’s very difficult to be ready to defend yourself against a moral attack and be is psychological counselor. First you have to determine if people have a gun or a knife in their pocket
In addition to making a senator actually stand and talk if they want to stall a bill, there is one other crucial adjustment needed. Instead of requiring a 60% to end the filibuster, flip it: require a 40% vote to keep it going. That way, the minority party doing the blockade has to keep 40 senators (while there is a total of 100) present at all times, or the majority can wind a vote to end debate. Make the obstructors bear the burden.
Lovely, what is the procedure to make it happen?
Get Manchin and Sinema on board. Have VP Harris ready to break a tie. Schedule a vote on a Senate rule change.
An interesting solution.
I think I agree with you. It’s a thorny problem and I wonder how it will work itself out. Our country needs this bill to protect voting rights and honestly it’s 2021 and it’s like we’re still fighting a civil war. We spend so much time fighting when we could be working together.
We ARE still fighting a civil war ... perhaps of a different nature, though.
Yeah, now the southern racists don't want to leave, they just want to dictate.
And all the while, shouting, "freedom".
My husband went down to Savannah one year when we were friends and helped officiate some sailboat races. He said he and his team had some awkward interactions and they decided they just didn’t enjoy the southerners. I just want them to turn a corner get over it. Actually they should apologize for seceding and creating this never ending mess. I guess it’s like a huge family rift that goes on and on.
So on a certain level I have to say this is completely crazy and maybe why my French friends say you Americans just love to fight. I’m an American and I don’t like fighting— I’ll do it if I have to but I’d rather get along. From my perspective and we do have a southern daughter in law-/ it’s almost like they had to convince themselves that slavery was really ok and that the damn Yankees just destroyed everything and that they’ve got to stick together in this opinion. Meanwhile there are no more working plantations that I’m aware of and how many years has it been. Why can’t they just get over it 146 years later?
That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with. There are plenty of southerners who are just as opposed to racism as I assume you are. I'm one of them.
I grew up in the south, and will stop using the broad brush when DEMs take a few more Senate seats and Prez votes in that region. So far, folks like you don't seem to be in the majority there.
I am glad to hear that and assume as much because of the vote in Georgia.
Good morning, Liz.
https://www.mic.com/articles/88461/a-modern-day-slave-plantation-exists-and-it-s-thriving-in-the-heart-of-america
Just went down a rabbit hole exploring the current state of plantations. They are still around, many as tourist spots, but Angola, it was a plantation and now is a prison plantation. The lede photograph is just horror.
My family of origin, god-fearing fundamentalists, hold tightly to a patriarchal position of white male supremacy. The god/father figure owns the chattel (land, women, children, animals). The entitlement of ownership gives rise to the abuses of power over. These men (and women who become honorary men [aka 'token torturers' see Mary
Daly]) don't have to own Black people to continue the culture, they just want everyone to "know their place" and stay in it.
Thanks for the explanation— now I know why our Harvard/Stanford educated southern daughter in law lets her husband control everything and barely says boo at the dinner table—I’ve never been able to fathom it. Thank you!
It's odd that the French, whose streets are often filled with the Gilet Jaunes, riot police, tractor protests, and who accept the clearing of the Calais "jungle", etc, think Americans "love to fight." Granted, the US probably racks up more protests, especially in smaller communities, but it was the American Revolution that actually inspired France's will to overcome their monarchy! Rousseau's words “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” continue to inspire movements around the world. So, I say, France should be proud to have provided the psychological underpinnings for America's dedication to freedom and the continual struggle it demands.
Et maintenant, mes amis, nous chantons avec Victor Laszlo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeFhSzoTuc
Toujours encore!
Oui Janjamm all u say is true but the French are full of contradictions unlike us. Sorry I’m being sarcastic.
It is difficult to work with supremacists for All The People's rights.
For sure and they don’t come out front and say I’m a white supremacist either— for some of them it’s an unconscious drive.
Absolutely
So Norm Orenstein has a couple of theories that might appeal to Manchin. One is to keep the minority party on the floor for days on end debating the issue. The fact is that all of them must be in the Senate chambers. Orenstein figures that a lot of the Repubs will get tired or bored about the debate, that a few would succumb to joining the Dems. At least, that is what I understand. Here is Orenstein’s thoughts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/02/manchin-filibuster-never-sinema/?outputType=amp
I like the other proposal which is to change the filibuster needing 60 votes to stop the debate to the filibuster needing 40 (actually Norm Orenstein thinks the ideal is 41) to keep the debate going. That means the minority has to work at it but one still has the filibuster available at the times it is needed. But it gets rid of the easy obstruction it now represents.
The thing I do like is that the minority (Repub) has to actually work!
And show up! Too many of the senators are lacking the will to work or show up for the hard stuff.
Confiscate their phones at the door, like the juveniles they are.
Great idea—and their guns
Right they don’t even pay attention when they’re there sometimes.
And publicly vote against popular legislation
Yes
I can picture the likes of Rand Paul or Ted Cruz playing computer games or doodling while a party member is "orating" during a filibuster. And, I agree making it a painful experience is the way to go for now.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1000013_12_angry_men/trailers/IlvsmS6kuPQ1
Hey, Marlene! Posted this article, too. Great minds...?
You know, Lynell, I just love that!
Thanks for this. I like Orenstein's stuff, but armchair psychology isn't my thing - too many imponderables in strategizing of this kind.
I used to get mixed up between Orenstein and Ornstein, too. That's why I re-checked the spelling of his name when I post.
I just now re-checked it, again, and changing my typing from Ormstein to Ornstein got rid of that squiggly red line under the misspelling. Now how did the Spelling Gods of Silicon Valley know that?
Honestly I am tired of Joe Manchin having an oversized influence. He is power drunk
It is unnerving and I find I grit my teeth more and more every time he says something. Sinema...just so disappointed in her!
He's taking what the situation gives him. The best way to change that would be for the DEMS to win a few more Senate seats in 2022.
I agree that "restore majority rule in the Senate" is a much better slogan than "end the filibuster", as at least a few (not too many, I hope) uninformed Americans will be surprised to know that any majority can be different from a simple one-vote majority or that - for some time, now - most legislation can only be passed in the Senate with a 20-vote majority, so that most House-passed legislation is never even considered by the Senate, and that is why our nation appears to moving backward and not forward (whatever that means). We politics junkies know all this stuff, but lots of nice - and not so nice - folks don't.
On the other hand, worrying about what a future GOP-controlled Senate might do in the absence of the filibuster is pointless. Clearly this GOP would not think twice about eliminating it in service of their nefarious designs. If the DEMs under Biden are crippled by fear at the very moment they can actually turn around 40 years of trickle-down, laissez-faire, survival-of-fittest, who-you-lookin-at-boy misgovernment, then why on earth did we vote for them? If it is our destiny to have to live in an authoritarian, racist oligarchy, well, let's just get on with it. To the barricades! Nothing is forever except death.
This moment appears to be the only chance to pass HR 1, Voting Rights Bill, in the Senate. If it requires ending the filibuster, do it. This one bill can do more to return our democracy to its foundations than any legislation since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. LBJ, who initiated the '65 legislation and signed it, was the very model of daring-do. He wouldn't hesitate. The Democrats should go there because without restoring voting rights, there is no democracy.
https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/whats-wrong-with-hr-1?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNTU2NDY2OSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzM0NTc4OTksIl8iOiJNMVY4NCIsImlhdCI6MTYxNTMwNzQzNiwiZXhwIjoxNjE1MzExMDM2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItODcyNzIiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.YsZLybUZUSsK-AL2cgJcR6EufxeZnDM5QJTSmG1dFFA
Suggesting that "money is speech" is exactly the basis for the Citizens United decision that has led to this democracy-killing, conundrum.
Getting rid of the filibuster makes sense to a lot of people. The votes are not there to do it. Making the filibuster a lot more painful and obvious is a step in the right direction, and it just might have the necessary votes. If even that does not get the voting rights bills past, maybe the holdouts will change their minds and vote to abolish. It's only been a pro-slavery, anti-civil rights maneuver anyway. I do remember Ted Kennedy using it to block Nixon's health care plan - the one that was the basis for Romney's plan in MA and then for Obama's - because it lacked a public option. That turned out to have been a mistake.
Hello Joan. The US healthcare insurance system pre-ACA was an abomination, while Obamacare is - at best - a significant but inadequate incremental improvement. My wife and I are over 65 and living on govt. pensions in Italy. I recently had a small skin tumor surgically removed, while my wife had a cataract fixed, all without pain or complication. The bill? What bill? This is Italy. Healthcare here is a right written into the Constitution. We have never received a bill for healthcare in Italy. Most Americans have no idea of how bad they have it when it comes to healthcare.
I guess if Joe Manchin and a few other "moderate" Democrats dig in their heels over the filibuster, US healthcare will continue to be an embarrassment for the foreseeable future. Ted Kennedy should not have used the filibuster to block Nixon's healthcare plan because - like Obama's - it was no doubt better than nothing and might have morphed into something more appropriate for a wealthy and powerful democracy, who knows?
Well, that was then, when there were still a few liberal Republicans, a few conservative Democrats, and general agreement that government was not something to be derided and then drowned in a bathtub, but in today's political hell, the GOP has become an organized crime syndicate aspiring to dictatorship. The events of Jan 6th are proof that I am not merely ranting here.
The bottom line is that there is no room for error or half-measures now. Despite the cheap, instant transmission of an infinite amount of information to anyone with a smartphone and easy access to reliable sources of fact-based news, many poorly educated Americans are in thrall to gurus, seers, and noisy paranoid schizophrenics who exploit their lack of knowledge and discernment and can convince them of almost anything. Throw in residual and not-so-latent racism and other forms of xenophobia, 40+ years of stagnant middle-class wages, rising rents, unaffordable higher education and the fetishization of the invisible hand and $$$$ and we have a dire situation that must be radically changed before the midterm elections in 2022.
But no, now we have to worry about a supposed Democrat's nostalgia for a Senate rule based on a mistake made by Aaron Burr a couple of hundred years ago and used to greatest effect in my lifetime to block Jim-Crow-killing civil rights bills. Will this last, best chance to save our democracy be simply (excuse the expression) pissed away if the "holdouts" maybe don't change their minds?
Thanks, David, for this good summary of politics since Nixon. In retrospect, some see him as the last liberal president of the 20C, If liberalism is defined as believing in government's role and using it to advance the common good. When it came to dirty tricks, conspiracy, secret bombings etc, definitely not so much.
TPJ! True, Tricky Dicky had his points. Wicked 5 o'clock shadow, however, and often slick with sweat when he was lying.
Don't forget Patty Murrey's filibuster in Texas to prevent an anti-abortion bill being passed before the legislture adjorned until after the election.
There are a few things that are so solidly consistant, they might as well be considered forever. Gravity for example, exists throughout the universe. They discovered even light survives entry into a black hole. Many processes go through cycles of consistant change but continue forever such as the planets traveling around a sun. Why is Western Civilization blinded by the death of all things rather than the shared reality of renewal such as Spring?
Fascinating quandary
Heard on Rachael Maddow podcast, Georgia is pursuing racketeering charges against Trump that could carry a 20 year sentence. They have hired an expert on such cases.
"There are not a lot of people who avoid serving prison time on a racketeering offense”
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6043d4c0c5b660a0f388d591
"Three top administrators were sentenced to seven years in prison, with 13 years’ probation. Five lower-ranking educators received one- to two-year prison terms." https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-atlanta-teachers-sentence-deal-20150414-story.html
Good morning everyone! HCR: "nothing you can't miss"? Reading this letter this morning belies that statement! The groveling and temper tantrums of the Gormless Ones and the Cheeto? Where will that end up? And, even more stark for our future, the fight over the filibuster. I disagree with the people who say that returning it to its original intent--to make it painful--is pointless. I think it is insufficient, but I DO think that it will give pause to the Mindless-Powermongering Wing (Hawley, Cruz, etc) because in my experience of these guys and gals they don't want to work that hard. That is why the Repugnants (to borrow a term from one of my companions here) changed the nature of the filibuster in the first place. Any move forward is positive--even if it is baby steps.
For me the news from yesterday that had me pausing was the news that Roy Blunt has decided not to run for re-election in 2022. I am surprised by this but, in another way, not surprised. He is a mainstream GOP guy from a long lineage of MO pols. He is playing with the idea of running for Prez but he is about as interesting as string cheese, and about as slippery. The tension between him and Hawley is also pretty clear--Hawley is enough of a narcissist that he thinks he can ignore the senior Senator with impunity. What Hawley doesn't understand is that Blunt--although I loathe and detest his politics on every level--is a legit "nice guy," who is well liked. He told my Congressman, Emmanuel Cleaver II, privately that he was not going to run, which considering their radical differences was a gentlemanly move that Cleaver appreciated.
So now we have a tiny opening in Missouri for 2022. And we need to drive a big ol' bulldozer through it.
Roy Blunt is retiree #5, Missouri Senator since 2011. Somehow he managed to become the fourth highest Republican in the Senate. It’s obvious that he is a huge loss by reading McConnell’s statement. (see link)
We already have the Republican Senate departures of Pat Toomey (PA since 2011), Richard Burr (NC since 2005), Rob Portman (OH since 2011), and Richard Shelby (AL since 1987).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/blunt-senate-republicans-missouri-greitens/2021/03/08/28f9ade0-8028-11eb-ac37-4383f7709abe_story.html?outputType=amp
[begin quote]
Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told reporters Monday that Blunt’s decision — joining the other GOP senators who have opted for retirement — “speaks volumes about what is happening in the Republican Party right now.”
“That certainly means that Republicans are viewing their party as in trouble, as one that is going to have a real difficult year next year,” he said.
[end quote]
Cori Bush!
Yeah, I have to be realistic about this, Joe! Love her but the risk of having someone worse than Hawley (and there are a few in this state!) wind up in the seat is a real danger. It will have to be someone a very diverse state can live with (like Claire McCaskill was) AND the other side has to screw up (e.g. the candidate in 2012, Todd Akin, who lost after he stated that "women can shut that whole thing down" [that is, becoming pregnant] if they are raped and so pregnancy resulting from rape can't be rape).
Yeah you are right, but I can dream!
She's got fire.
Your closing sentence puts our future in stark perspective. It drives home the scope of damage Trump inflicted on the nation with The Big Lie. He was like a fleeing army laying mines and other traps to cripple the advancing conquering force.
Given all that has happened since Trump's election, Democrats will not sit idle in the face of voter suppression, which they might have in the past. We know what's on the line, as you effectively captured. Millions of young people now have a taste of the power and influence they possess. African-Americans young and old are as motivated and engaged as they have ever been, not to mention organized. The fight to vote will be epic.
Key, however, is the Biden Administration continuing to deliver on major campaign pledges to keep new and occasional voters engaged. That's why, as you wrote, the filibuster looms over everything. Many voters don't understand or care about it. They only care about results.
And we've seen how Stacey Abrams's determined approach, over about a decade, worked to win Georgia elections -- after she lost in a squeaker to Brian Kemp. She lost but came back.
As she has said: "I am relentless."
Let us all follow her lead.
I'd be curious to know what folks think about the ideas presented here:
"Democrats can’t kill the filibuster. But they can gut it," by Norman Ornstein, Mar. 2, 2021.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/02/manchin-filibuster-never-sinema/
"For a West Virginia Democrat [Joe Manchin], heavy criticism from key members of his own party, up to and including President Biden, might wind up working to Manchin’s advantage. That was true of an earlier apostate, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), who’s been reelected several times after switching from Democrat to Republican in 1994, after butting heads with President Bill Clinton."
"Instead of naming and shaming them, Democrats might consider looking at what Manchin and Sinema like about the filibuster. Sinema recently said, “Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, it’s meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans.” Last year, Manchin said, “The minority should have input — that’s the whole purpose for the Senate. If you basically do away with the filibuster altogether for legislation, you won’t have the Senate. You’re a glorified House. And I will not do that.”"
Here are the points outlined in Norman Ornstein's article:
-- Make the minority do the work.
-- Go back to the “present and voting” standard.
-- Narrow the supermajority requirement.
I invite you to follow the link and read the article. New ideas!
I am sending comments to my Senators (Schumer and Gillibrand) asking them to "adjust" the filibuster. Including Joe Manchin's idea of making it painful.
I did read the Wpo article on the Filibuster and have had a day to think about what I want from my government.
It is pretty simple. Sometimes a minority is correct. I want the minority to have a way to express themselves. I want is to see a Senate chamber filled with Senators every day who are talking about real issues without dollar signs pasted over their eyes. I want to see if the minority can convince the majority not whether some arcane rules can be manipulated to control my future. What I want is for every bill that is introduced in either house to have its day in the sun, to be talked about debated on, reported on and then voted on. I want majority rule in the end even if that majority is only by one.
I want simplicity, transparency, responsibility. I want people to run for office because they love democracy and want to be a part of it not because they love power and can’t imagine living without it. Politics is a dirty business. I want it cleaned up.
What I don’t want is what we have. Rule by manipulation. Rule by addicts to power. Rule by deep pockets. Rule not by law but by finance. Basically capitalism run amuck.
I always appreciate your thoughtful and articulate responses, Patrick.
May I "steal" this and post it on my Facebook page, with attribution (or without -- you don't know who watches my FB page).
Sure, I'm not on FB so your choice.
Patrick Munson wrote: "I want majority rule in the end if that majority is only by one." This is the only sentence I absolutely oppose!!! PLEASE RECONSIDER the serious ramifications majority rule!! That could too easily become an oligarchy if only rich people can afford to run for office.
Please consider the ramifications of minority rule opposed to anything but the interests of the 1%.
TPJ "minority rule opposed to anything bur the interests of the 1%" is what we have now. The whole concept that a 600 page bill only has two choices, yea or ney.
What if senators had to vote for each page. A 600 page bill would require 3001 votes by 100 Senator in order to pass. If it only received 2999 votes, the page that received the fewest votes would be removed or modified. If the bill only received 2990 votes, the 10 pages with the fewest votes would either be removed or modified. Think outside the box. Make them debate on the record.
I'm thinking oligarchy can only be prevented by voter rights and election reform (HR1 S1 and I would go further to say elections are completely state sponsored, no private money) and by everyone exercising those rights. After that. its the majority. Curious to know what your alternative would be?
Even in that fantasy world, the majority could become a mob inthralled by an oligarch. Let's pretend there is no racism and everyone had sufficient access to food, shelter, clean water, and safety from domestic violence. Then the majority would be free enough to think for themselves and make decisions that would use natural resources wisely.
I looked up the origin of the word “filibuster”. The French and Spanish applied the term to pirates back in earlier centuries. It has come to mean sabotage, as in the minority’s ability to sabotage legislation. Think on what it means for the minority to sabotage legislation. No meaningful legislation to deal with the pandemic or safeguard elections or voting rights. No meaningful legislation to protect public spaces from people with weapons wanting to cause mass murder, such as El Paso, Las Vegas and numerous schools. Think on that kind of sabotage. Arcane rules of procedure should not endanger the legislative process so it halts entirely.
I have read this article (highly recommend) and believe the options Ornstein describes are good ones. In addition to winning Manchin and Sinema's support, they would bring the Republicans' obstruction and lack of any real governing agenda into the open.
Norm Ornstein is a mature genius with a considered point of view... he will be heard by Manchin... and the Senate will change... filibuster has a place, verbal filibuster, not the push button variety... cutting corners never helps... we must sweat the detail and turn on the lights. Justice Brandeis had it right: sunlight disinfects... when we speak about what we do and why we do it, we hang out there for those that hate. They need a target.
To tolerance... differences are exciting, not threatening... the sooner our sick nation learns that differences are healthy - and tolerance is a virtue... we will learn that the NEED TO BE DIFFERENT is worth a look, too... I am not for conforming, but it makes sense to listen to everyone... and use the views of others - and their habits... habit drives most of it - then think through all of it and ask this question: What are the significant differences among people? An ETS topic c. 1955.. when written essays were required for college admission. of course, they were read and judged by those that fear differences... As one that loves differences, I am challenged by conformity... but we all recognize the need for conformity, too. Ontological, no?
Nicely said. One needs a mix of conformity and difference. The question is, does our use of difference lead to advances (or restorations)?
I think of the "delta" from calculus, which refers to the change. And of acceleration/deceleration, which are changes in velocity.
Thing's gonna change. We're gonna get older. Can we find ways to age gracefully and marshal our powers to make a difference? Always a possibility.
Please, just make sure that the differences you make are "good trouble."
Walk it off.
Trying.
What exactly is the filibuster's place? The Senate can easily permit any and all minority opinions to be fully expressed in the course of debating proposed legislation. Each Senator can have his/her 10 minutes (or whatever) of glory, and then everyone casts the vote they have previously decided on and C-Span watchers get a good show and the majority gets its way. This is called democracy. The Senate could even add an extra period of debate if 40 Senators requested it, and that might be another 10 minutes of glory for each Senator and then... they all vote and the majority gets its way. This too would be democracy. This is what our country is all about and why our Constitution contains a bill of rights. Yes, the minority have their rights and must be heard, but the majority decides whether or not to pass a bill. Democracy again.
At some point the will of citizens who cast their votes in free and fair elections must prevail. For historical reasons involving the difficulty of getting slave states and non-slave states to agree to a unifying constitution, our system of government is already well-rigged for minority rule. The design of the Senate itself guarantees that voters from sparsely populated rural states have more power than voters from states with denser populations and larger urban areas. This is by Constitutional design and is most undemocratic. Do we really need to hang onto a mere Senate rule that makes our government even less democratic than the founding fathers intended? What possible good can come from a filibuster? What American ideal does it help us realize? About the only answer Republicans can give is "Under the circumstances the filibuster can enable us to keep Joe Biden and the Democrats from passing legislation their supporters want so that enough of them will be disappointed and vote GOP in 2022 that we can get power back and try to keep the Democrats from ever getting power again." How far we have fallen.
Norm Ornstein may well be a "mature genius" but his recent article in the Atlantic - while adorned with interesting historical tidbits - is limp, noncommittal. He seems to not know what he really thinks about the filibuster. What does he want our nation to become post-Trump?
I apologize for re-posting a reply I made to a comment above, but it is in response to your request:
have considered the filibuster as a mechanism that recognizes that minority opinions exist and deserve some level of respect, especially of those views are passionately held. It provides a right to the minority to express their beliefs. That said, the change in Senate rules allowed the minority to dominate and killed any need to negotiate. (Remember the episode from the original Star Trek where two enemies agreed to a virtual war, where an attack was announced by one side and the enemy would randomly designate a predetermined number of people to be put to death painlessly. That agreement eliminated the destruction of property and infrastructure, bu it also ended the motivation to negotiate and made the war interminable.) By returning to the old rule, the Senate can dominance of the minority and reestablish the art of negotiating.
Negotiations. What a fine idea.
Excellent article. I will follow your lead and contact my senators as well.
Thanks for sharing the article, sounds enlightening.
Good morning HRC, I have been reading through the comments inspired by your newsletter today in which you state pretty clearly that the filibuster is standing in the way of the proposed voting rights bill passed by the House, and that this legislation is at the top of your "must-pass- the-Senate" list. I completely agree with you, but I cannot understand why so many readers seem to prefer some sort of cosmetic change to the filibuster, of a face-saving way to keep the filibuster, or a filibuster that just looks like our present filibuster but really isn't, or a filibuster requiring 40 Senators to keep it going rather than 60 to vote cloture. There are other variations on this theme, as well.
But does anyone have any doubt as to what Trump and today's GOP would do right now if they had the smallest possible simple majority in the Senate? They would have ditched the filibuster on day one, and they would have already cut taxes even more for the rich, reinstituted poll taxes and selective civics testing for potential African American voters, banned wind and solar power development and provided funding for a new super highway up the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon. (Hey DEMs, you want infrastructure? Well stick this up your....).
What are we afraid of? Joe Manchin and the other RepubliDems can be convinced to live without this freaking filibuster. This will be their claim on posterity.
"You remember Joe Manchin?" "Who?" "Y'know, the guy who agreed to give up the Senate filibuster, which made it possible for Joe Biden to save America from Trump and those weirdos." "You mean the guy who made it possible for me to get a good job installing solar panels so my children wouldn't have to die in the coal mine or get black lung disease? That Joe Manchin?" "Yup, that's the one."
I believe the hesitation to get rid of it altogether is because of the delicate balance we continue to hold in the Senate. If things should flip in the Republican direction, they would simply roll back everything Biden is getting done right now. I think the compromise, forcing it back to the uncomfortable 'stand and talk until you are blue in the face' is not a bad alternative for the moment.
Shelly, someone has misunderstood something... The filibuster is simply a rule in the Senate that permits unlimited debate of proposed legislation unless a Senator makes a motion asking for "cloture", at which point there is a vote, and if 60 Senators vote in favor of cloture, the debate ends and the legislation under consideration is put to a vote. A simple majority, which is to say a one-vote margin, passes the bill or defeats it. So, a party that hold 41 seats in the modern Senate can, by voting against cloture, effectively prevent passage of any bill except one designed to satisfy the rigid and somewhat complex requirements of another parliamentary mechanism, called "reconciliation". If you already know all this, please forgive me, but if "things should flip in the Republican direction" as you suggest, because the filibuster can be instituted, eliminated or reinstituted by a simple majority of the Senate at any time, it makes no difference to a future GOP majority if today's DEM majority decides to eliminate the filibuster in order to be able to legislate. They will do whatever the Constitution permits them to do, and our Constitution makes no mention of any filibuster, providing for a simple majority except in cases of proposed constitutional amendments or the override of a presidential veto. The real issue is whether the filibuster is a proper part of our democracy where we have been brought up to trust the results of voting, be it in elections or simply deciding whether we, as a group (any group, even a group of 3 people) will decide to do this or do that, and if the "thats" win by one vote, then everyone agrees to do that, not this. We Americans get all this with our mother's milk, so to speak. The filibuster - one of many anomalies in our democracy - had its heyday in the middle of the last century when it was used with considerable success by southern Democratic Senators - known as Dixiecrats - to prevent passage of civil rights legislation. As the 12 year-old son of a Labor Department lawyer working for JFK and LBJ, I was pretty well versed in some of this stuff, and I remember hoping with all my heart that a cloture motion would pass. And it did!
So I cannot see any point in anyone talking until blue in the face, unless he is the handsome Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", a really great film if you have never seen it, by the way.
Interesting. We watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington nearly every Presidents Day--well known in my house, always loved that movie. My understanding (perhaps wrong--no problem with you educating us here, this is awesome) was that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans have been using the filibuster to block any bill by Obama, and now Biden. I believe the Democrats cannot get rid of the filibuster due to Manchin and Sinema right now, so making it more difficult to be obstructionist--more uncomfortable--seems like a good route. Even if it wasn't Stewart talking until he is blue in the face, I wouldn't mind forcing these rich, spoiled Senators to actually show up and talk in the Senate about why they support it--or read from Dr. Seuss ad nauseum.
They need to pay personally for that kind of obstruction and prove their case in front of the American people--or look even more foolish than they do now if they can't bring some persuasive facts to the floor. And I thought the fear is that if it flips, the Republicans do NOT restore it, which might give the Democrats the same McConnell style control, but simply drive everything through on a very slim majority, that would be a disaster, since even in our current delicate balance, Republicans are representing 41 million less citizens with each vote.
Hi Shelly. I guess your take on the filibuster depends a lot on what you think the consequences might be if Biden and the Democrats are unable to fulfill their campaign promises between now and the 2022 midterm elections. If you think the attack on the US Capitol was somehow benign, or that Trump's big lie about how the election was stolen from him is somehow innocuous, then you might also think that the GOP would never in a million years try to change our democracy into an authoritarian state and run it mainly for their own benefit. You know, turn it into a dictatorship. I mean it has never happened in well over 200 years, right?
But if you are worried that this is not some fantasy nightmare but a real possibility due in part to our demographics, in part to our history going back to the Civil War and beyond, in part to changes in the way information is generated and transmitted in our smartphone addicted society and in part to the enormous disparity of wealth between the very rich and everyone else - well there are lots of theories as to what is really happening in the American psyche - then current GOP attempts to restrict voting aimed mainly at African Americans and other groups who tend to vote for Democrats should greatly disturb you. In fact, I imagine it does, and you would like the Congress to pass legislation that makes voting fair and easy for every eligible citizen. And this can happen if all Senate Democrats (and the Vice President) vote for it, but if the filibuster remains in effect, the Democrats will be unable to pass this and most other legislation.
I think that the Democrats have a two-year window of opportunity to pass transformative legislation that will help many millions of Americans to lead much better lives, and on paper they have the votes in Congress to do it, though a 1-vote majority makes this difficult in the best of circumstances. Also, it appears that the GOP - rather than participating in this in some positive way - will do everything they can to block any and all Democratic legislation, causing the Biden presidency to fail in much the same way they caused the Obama administration to fail, and then retake both House and Senate in 2022 and prepare to retake the White House in 2024. So, there is an obvious reason why most Democrats want to eliminate the filibuster. What I find odd is that any Democrats want to keep the filibuster. In the past its most important use was to prevent civil rights legislation during the Jim Crow period, and then it was mainly used by southern Democrats. More recently the GOP controlled Senate has used the simple threat of a filibuster and McConnell's parliamentary skills to keep most legislation passed by the House from even being considered in the Senate. But the filibuster is not in the Constitution, which calls for votes in the Senate to be by simple majority except in the case of proposed amendments to the Constitution or overrides of presidential vetoes.
So the filibuster is an anomaly in any case, and any Senate majority can get rid of it whenever they want, just takes 51 votes. By the same token, any Senate majority at any time - DEM, GOP, Bipartisan, it doesn't matter - can reinstate it or invent some other rule if they have 51 votes. So the worry that if the DEMS get rid of it, then so will the GOP when they're in power, is just silly. Of course the GOP would vote to have the filibuster or not based on what they think is advantageous for them at any given moment, and the Democrats ought to do the same, and we should just get used to having the majority rule as set out in our Constitution. The only way to eliminate the filibuster once and for all would be to amend the Constitution, an impossible task under present circumstances.
The bottom line is this: If you want Joe Biden and the Democrats to pass all or most of the legislation they have proposed, you should let them know that you want them to eliminate the filibuster.
So you are preaching to the choir here. Totally on board with wanting to pass HR1, and I realize the gravity of the moment. HR1 can't pass with the filibuster active--BUT from what I have been reading, the Dems cannot get to that 51 to eliminate it. Without that, what is a realistic alternative? Making it really, really uncomfortable for the Republicans to play that game--apparently that change to the rule is acceptable to Manchin and hopefully Sinema as well.
I understand I am preaching to the choir. I find it disturbing that - given the stakes - the DEMs cannot eliminate the filibuster, and if Joe and Kyrsten intend to keep the filibuster simply to force GOP Senators to stay up all night for days on end and do their best Jimmy Stewart imitations, I would like to understand why. What is the point of having a political party if - in an existentially perilous moment for both the party and the nation - the DEMs can't all be on the same page? They should work out their differences in private, agree to disagree, then all vote together. This is no more and no less than what the GOP has been doing (with a few rare exceptions - John McCain comes to mind) for some time now. There is nothing about the filibuster - besides its convenience for the minority - that can justify passing up the opportunities afforded to the DEMs to pass essential legislation. I think many ordinary folks who put enormous effort into getting a DEM majority in the Senate will wonder whether it was really worth it, and this is the surest way back to a Trump dictatorship. Don't know what more I can say.
On what do you base your opinion that Joe Manchin 'can be convinced to live without this freaking filibuster'? Do you think that Schumer and others closer to him haven't tried talk Manchin out of his support for it? Given what is at stake, HR. 1, for instance, Joe sees another option to have his cake and eat it, too. Fiddle with the filibuster, 'make them (the Republicans) suffer' and pass vital legislation without sacrificing the filibuster. The minority will have to work much harder to filibuster, while making it easier for the majority to pass at least part of its legislative agenda. Norm Ornstein's thorough and deep understanding of legislative tools, has provided the democrats with a couple of options. If you are interested a short history of the filibuster, here's an article by Ornstein about it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/we-already-got-rid-filibuster-once-before/618201/
I think that the democrats are determined to pass HR. 1. Manchin and Sinema probably won't and don't want to stop that from happening.
Well, I have read Mr. Ornstein's article, and it seems like a pretty clear argument against the filibuster. That eliminating it in the House may have lead to the Spanish-American war is interesting, though perhaps this is not relevant to trying to pass voting rights legislation while the minority party attempts to reinstate Jim Crow at the state level. I think we are in the midst of an emergency, and the filibuster may prevent us from saving our democracy from Trump's GOP.
I hope Joe Manchin - all politicking aside - believes that all Americans 18 or older have a right to freely and easily cast a ballot in any election for which they are eligible to do so. I cannot imagine that this basis for democracy itself is not more important to him than almost anything else. But if he wants to hold out for promises of some special benefits for his constituents - I can think of several the suffering citizens of West Virginia are entitled to and should receive in fairly short order under the Biden administration in any case - I hope he still has, shall we say, his eyes on the prize.
If on the other hand, fear of losing his Senate seat is his prime motivation in not helping President Biden do what Americans elected him to do, then I have no sympathy for him and regret he is a Democrat. I think Joe Manchin should be man enough to choose whether to eat his cake or to have it.
They’ll fiddle with it enough to pass HR. 1, and other significant bills on Biden's agenda. Raise the Wage (hike minimum wage) will be much more difficult as there isn’t even a Democratic consensus.
I live near WV. I can tell you without a doubt it is the fear of losing his Senate seat. Manchin is more red than blue at the core. You are not being realistic thinking Manchin will do the right thing here. He won't.
Well then, better to make an example of him and subject him a serious primary opponent next time around.
Currently, the filibuster takes the form of a threat to filibuster.
But there are threats and threats… Threats are two-edged weapons.
Given all the criminal actions engaged in by the previous president and his accomplices, a sword of Damocles hanging over every head must be just for starters. Starters. Beyond those… straitjackets, handcuffs and perp walks.
As for Manchin, are there no frighteners?
Your dramatic, frightening and funny options win the case!
What a great article, Fern! Thanks very much for the reference.
(p.s.: it's actually written by David Litt)
Thank you, Jeff. You’re right.
This is something about which I have been talking for a while now. The Democrats have two years (less now) to get things done. The new Voting Rights Act; statehood for Puerto Rico and/or D.C.; a long overdue hike in the absurdly low minimum wage. All of this needs to get done before the next election.
Exactly, so much work to do. I would also include adding seats to the Supreme Court to the list.
If the items mentioned above were Republican priorities, you can be sure they would do whatever necessary to pass them. They need to be faced down that our government can work for everyone, not just the wealthy.
Agreed. And, I just don't understand the lack of urgency on the Democrats' part with respect to these issues. We readers all seem to understand their importance. Why can't the people in the House and Senate understand that as well?
What a petty man. I don’t understand how anyone can support him. Even more so now.
Yes, make the filibuster more painful. Make them be there and stay there and when they speak it must be on topic. H.R.1 needs to become law.
In the meantime, while some of us are boycotting Amazon so as to let the employees decide whether they want a union or not: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/politics/biden-unions-labor.html
It is such a thrill to read about the breadth of knowledge that the Biden/Harris team have about so much stuff!!
Thank you, Lynell, for bringing up the Amazon boycott. As a small business owner in rural area of NH, I like to take every opportunity to discourage people from using Amazon at all. There are too many reasons why to list here and I suspect most of you know them anyway. Other than sheer convenience for consumers, there is nothing healthy about the company or the business model. Please, please, please! Support your local bookstores, many of whom will ship to you if needed, music, clothing, kitchen, craft and gift stores. Yes, they will always be more expensive. Buy less if funds are limited. If we don't do this, we will all be at the mercy of Amazon for perpetuity. Amazon is not going away, but we can limit its power and retain the vibrancy and diversity of small business America if we have the will.
I have stopped using Amazon for non-book purchases, but I need Kindle books because my eyesight is so poor. Are there alternatives? My local bookstore has e-books but the app needed to read them gets really poor reviews.
Check out Overdrive/Libby at your local library. Most of my reading is via kindle or other reader apps as I live in Mexico and my access to English language books is almost nonexistent. I use Overdrive via Denver Public Library.
I have a friend who specifically seeks out Black owned bookstores to order all her books from. I've done the same when ordering musical things (i.e. sousaphone bits or mouthpieces) and motorcycle parts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/09/opinion/amazon-baltimore-dc.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20210309&instance_id=27872&nl=opinion-today®i_id=79034917&segment_id=53067&te=1&user_id=6d3b40c6dbbe42a6da12f3128244d6f9
Thank you, Beth! I am grateful for your perspective. Not a big Amazon fan for the reasons you state.
It's good to have solidarity on the Amazon boycott. Don't even type the Amazon URL, let alone check orders or shop. If anyone needs books this week -- and beyond -- try Better World Books.
https://www.betterworldbooks.com/
S-1 must be passed.
This from Georgia:
“Georgia lawmakers have advanced a measure [An Act to comprehensively revise elections and voting – SB 241] that would significantly curtail voting access after a record number of voters propelled Democratic victories in the 2020 race.”
Stacey Abrams commented:
“In the last two election cycles, we saw a dramatic increase in the number of voters of color who voted by mail, the number of young people who used early voting, the number of African Americans who voted on Saturday and Sunday. We saw unprecedented levels of turnout across the board. And so every single metric of voter access that has been a good in Georgia is now under attack.”
I wrote a letter to President Biden last night asking why S-1 has not been mentioned in the last two Press conferences in which Jen Psaki listed the Administration’s priorities.
Why is Election Reform not mentioned on the list of Administration priorities on the White House website?
The filibuster is a huge issue here because S-1 will be one of – if not the - most contentious issues in the 117th Congress. I can’t imagine it will pass without some change to Senate rules.
The President will likely sign the Covid Relief measure today or tomorrow and then move on to his next agenda item. He may believe that getting into the fray over S-1 would threaten Infrastructure, Health Care, Environmental and other initiatives – I don’t know. But, I would certainly love to be a fly on the wall of the Oval Office right now.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/08/georgia-senate-bill-voting-rights
A fly on the wall of the Oval Office will probably hear this: “let’s stay quiet about HB1 and SB1. Let’s keep our thoughts on the subject under the radar. The higher the profile, the bigger the target.”
I had the same thought.
I enjoy and learn something useful and important in each of your postings, and especially appreciate your calm, thoughtful, and articulate writing
It's good to have the stakes laid out plain and clear. I think Manchin is positioning himself to maximize his own influence; he loves having all DC come courting. Nevertheless, he does want his party to make progress, so he is willing to tinker with the filibuster. I shudder to think about what happens without it if the GQP wrenches power away from the Dems in 2022 or 2024.
Just do so much between now and then that you win by a landslide and we can stop worrying about filibusters.
The GQP is rapidly moving in the direction of the fate of the KKK. Adios chumps.
The Reconstruction South, I hear, lasted decades and decades. And people died and stayed dirt poor. Real, long-lasting human misery.
Real long lasting human misery as a result of not holding the secessionists truly accountable for the Civil War. I grew up in NC, and the history l was taught left out or whitewashed so many facts like the war was not fought over slavery, as one example.
The war was ostensibly over secession but slavery (Emancipation) was thrown in as a tool to defeat the south.
True. I shudder to think of a future in which all of America is under that kind of control. I want better for my grandkids. What can we do to push for ending filibuster and passage of HR1? I live in MA and, since my state is solidly democrat, feel like there isn’t much I can do that would be helpful since leadership doesn’t need to be convinced to support HR1.
For the first time in my life I donated to out of state Senators in the GA runoff. I also sent out donation links to my friends who did the same. We need to identify key races in 2022 and fundraise for the strongest Democrats. And get the vote out. This will be my singular political focus.
This is what I've done as well.
That's exactly what I did and will continue to do. I live in Texas and until we toss Fled Cruz and Crooked Cornyn out, I have no representation at the senatorial level. At all.
I’ve also done this.
Karen, what is MA doing at a state level to change/limit voting rights? NH is one that has introduced all sorts of suppression bills. Even though we sent Dems to DC we have GOP controlled state legislature (ridiculously huge one at that) and all my reps are racist, misogynistic gun loving not so good old red neck boys who are all about making it harder to vote. For the first time in my life, I'm thinking of moving out of NH, but I'm still working and my husband owns a business here, and all my friends are here. It would be a lot to give up.
Beth, the MA legislature is majority Dem. There are no anti-voting measures on the docket.
It's amazing how neighboring states can be so different.
MA is one of the easiest US states to vote in. NH is different from other New Eng states, with a long, strong tradition of conservatism (cf. Manchester Union-Leader). But it's been shifting in a more liberal direction, partly due to MA residents relocating to southern NH.
According to th Brennan Center website, MA has 9 bills that would restrict voting rights. I didn't check them out as I have enough to do here in NH, but just following up on this thread in case Karen or anyone else from MA wants to do so.
Encourage our own fine Congresspeople here in MA, and support the good ones elsewhere. We have more power than we know. Use it!
Aha! You live in Massachusetts. Contact your D.C. reps and thank them for their good work. Give them a little story about your life that can "ring their bells" in a memorable way.
I bet they like appreciation just like the rest of us.
We do not have to let that happen again.
I agree TPJ, I am worried about the oppression of the majority.