US democracy: The threat in 2024 is 'completely uncharted territory'
csmonitor.com
csmonitor.com
The argument quickly strike at it's opponents in the worst ways as disingenuous liars and damns anyone convinced by it as an easily duped fool.
Here's the thing, while it's only marginally effective at convincing someone who disagrees with you to change their mind it's really effective at getting people who already agree with you to show support.
I understand the appeal. Actually changing anyone's mind is probably impossible. If you want someone to do something they don't want to do you need to use both empathy and intelligence to show the person why the thing they think they don't want is actually something they do want. It's really hard.
The alternative is try and make them feel bad about themselves. To get the people who already agree with you super fired up. To win utterly without compromise. I appreciate the enthusiasm but it's a total pipe dream.
And yet the logical conclusion never seems to be embracing a small limited government. The power base keeps expanding then everyone gets surprised when their side loses an election.
And if/when this has happened before -- what fixed this level of hostility?
Other than that... has it happened to this degree before? I'm not sure that it has.
Anything with a vote means that someone is going to be unhappy with the results afterward. That's how it works.
The weeping and wailing began the night of the referendum. By the next morning we were confidently told by the press, Reddit, and Twitter that millions of Leave voters were already regretting their vote, and that another referendum was thus the only fair/democratic/correct thing to do. (That even if such millions of Regretters actually existed that does not mean that a revote would occur is a minor technicality.)
People also forget how anger on Leavers' part against delay on Brexit did not become significant until 2019. The Supreme Court agreed that there was reasonable basis for the Miller case, and (more controversially) unexpectedly ruled for her in the second Miller case. But Leavers understandably came to see both lawsuits as part and parcel of an unrelenting attempt on Remainers' part to stop Brexit by any and all means, whether legitimate or not. The fact that Miller actively campaigned for revoking Article 50 didn't help the Remain cause, and discredited her claim during the first case that she wanted to protect parliamentary sovereignty.
It's pretty clear in retrospect that what drove the Labour collapse in 2019 (In some Red Wall seats—seats that Labour had held with massive majorities for 50-100 years—the Tories didn't have to gain a single vote to win) is both Labour Leavers unhappy about their party not continuing its 2017 acceptance of Brexit coming, and Remainers who disliked the idea (whether explicit among Lib Dems, or implicit among much of Labour) of ignoring a democratic vote in 2016. That's why another referendum was so unpopular, because no one believes that it would not be rigged against Leave.[1]
Those who in other circumstances might have supported a "People's Vote" didn't, because they saw it as yet another attempt to delay and prevent Brexit via Neverendums. I think Leave would have won another referendum conducted under the circumstances of the first one, but Leavers understandably didn't trust the People's Vote folks to implement another referendum in any way that Leave can again win. Not after 3.5 years and counting of shenanigans such as the Miller case.
[1] Even supporters of same, no matter what they said. That's why they were for it.
> And yet the logical conclusion never seems to be embracing a small limited government.
Come on. A big chunk of the disagreement itself is about the desirability of a "small limited government," so you're basically saying that when there's political disagreement, people should solve it by giving up and just adopting your politics. That's not a "logical conclusion."
But that "solution" fails to understand the crux of the disagreement, so it doesn't solve it at all. It's like trying to solve a disagreement over tax rates by abolishing private property.
So... the party that holds the presidency and both chambers of Congress is the "opposition?" That's an interesting take on things.
Perhaps he means "opposition to authoritarianism," but the party of "I have a pen and a phone" and "We need to pass the bill to find what's in it" has it's own authoritarian tendencies. I'm NOT a fan of Trump, but the idea that this is a problem only with the Republicans is silly.
So is the idea that the dissolving of "mutual toleration" mentioned in the article is a one way street. There are plenty of interviews like this one https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/ive-never-felt-this-s... that express how norms on the left have also changed pretty drastically over the past few years. The government has been in multiple law suits with a group of nuns, called the "Little Sisters of the Poor," all of whom are celibate and most of whom are elderly, trying to force them to buy health insurance that includes birth control. Maybe that group of nuns is misguided, but how does the left demonstrate mutual respect? How do situations like that demonstrate "restraint in using their institutional powers?"
Sorry those nuns are upset about buying health insurance, but I pay for all kinds of things I don't want to pay for too. Having good faith debates about that kind of thing is part of democracy though, and in the end it's pretty minor.
Showing restraint in institutional power means not using that power in an attempt to overturn an election just because you think you could legally get away with it.
I'm no partisan Republican, but I don't think that's true. Creating seats until you gain control also undermines electoral process, and the "For the People Act" pushed DC statehood. That's a naked grab for two more safe Democratic Senate seats, especially when any concerns about the enfranchisement of DC residents could be solved with less of a partisan power-play (like letting Maryland annex most of DC).
If you read liberal-leaning comment sections (e.g. like the NYT's), there's a lot more extreme fantasizing about creating new liberal states and abolishing or politically neutering conservative ones.
I definitely think the Republicans have been "trying to undermine the electoral process itself" more blatantly, but the Democrats aren't saints either.
And frankly, if the Republican threat to democracy is so dire, probably the best thing to save it is for the Democrats to shoot their progressive wing in the head and loudly run to the center, become competitive in conservative states, and focusing on routing the Republican party above other ideological goals.
The next election confirmed Trump had one of the largest support bases in history by number of votes and lost a fairly tight election to Biden (noting that US elections are determined by swing states, not absolute vote counts).
There was at least a shade of un-democracy in those impeachments. The Democrats weren't implementing the will of the people there, it is pretty clear they were trying to implement the will of Democratic people and override the results that the system had come up with.
That's a bad read of the situation. While the impeachments did have a partisan aspect, they were also totally warranted from a non-partisan perspective, given Trump's actual behavior.
Honestly, the more shamelessly partisan thing was how Republicans didn't go along with the impeachment, but rather gave Trump a full throated defense, just because he had an R next to his name (at the time).
If you think granting DC citizens federal government representation is a power play relative to what republicans get away with on a regular basis, you must be purposefully not paying attention.
So? That's by design. The Senate was never meant to represent population proportionately. It was meant to ensure small states wouldn't get dominated by large states, and that means being able to block things. IIRC, that was a core compromise in the Constitution, and it's a bad look to go all Darth Vader on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g).
> If you think granting DC citizens federal government representation is a power play relative...
It's a power play in absolute terms because the solution that's being pursued was chosen specifically to yield a partisan advantage. In some senses it's even worse than stuff like extreme Gerrymandering, because once implemented it will be almost impossible to undo or reevaluate. DC citizens could be also be granted federal government representation by making them citizens of Maryland. That would solve the core problem, and there's precedent: the government already did something similar to the part of DC on the Virginia side of the Potomac in 1847.
It seems like you're fine with small Republican states that give your preferred party an outsized power over larger states, but don't want the other side to benefit from that same dynamic.
There's nothing logical about giving a population larger than that of two existing states and with it's own distinct history to Maryland. When pieces of DC were given back to Virginia, it didn't come with a population larger than Vermont.
The only reason to oppose DC statehood is naked partisan power.
Are you even reading what I'm writing? You seem to be trying to have a different argument that's perhaps more familiar to you.
My point is that there's a multitude of options to solve the DC representation problem, and the reason to choose statehood is that you want more D's in the federal government. Pretty much every argument in favor DC statehood specifically is just rhetorical window-dressing for that.
> It seems like you're fine with small Republican states that give your preferred party an outsized power over larger states, but don't want the other side to benefit from that same dynamic.
How exactly is the party I didn't vote for my preferred party? Just to be clear: I voted for Democrats.
> There's nothing logical about giving a population larger than that of two existing states and with it's own distinct history to Maryland. When pieces of DC were given back to Virginia, it didn't come with a population larger than Vermont.
Just cut the crap and admit DC should become a (city-)state because the Democrats could use two more senators.
You'll notice that I'm not "opposing giving people votes," and I actually referenced an alternate way to get them representation. I'm just noting that the the main reason someone would choose DC statehood over the alternative is because they want more safe Democratic senators. It's also worth noting that the Virginia part of DC was already given back to Virginia, so there's more precedent for that kind of solution over statehood..
That sort of belief is what gets you to situations like what we see in Myanmar, with “declaration of fraud” being the only excuse for installing any leadership.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/28/970877930/why-republicans-are...
https://www.salon.com/2021/02/27/republicans-roll-out-tidal-...
Irrational..? Are you really just going to ignore the elephants in the room here?
Separate but equal facilities are fair, right?
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-wisconsin-election-2...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-pollin...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/georgia-voter-rolls-...
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-07-01/supreme-co...
First they came for your right to free expression, and I did not speak out because I couldn't anymore. The end.
Consider that virtually every other mass-communication medium CAN'T do what the social firms are getting away with currently, rather than cheer on your "right side of history" allies.
* The Biden administration is working with technology companies to flag users and posts for removal.
* Journalists and whistleblowers are being censored, monitored and even jailed.
* More Americans than ever say they cannot speak their mind or they risk losing their livelihoods.
* The public isn't allowed to have reasonable discussions on scientific research or theory if it is counter to the prevailing narrative or they risk being censored and removed from platforms. See ivermectin and lab leak.
* Our biggest newspapers cannot report on majority held beliefs and perspectives without retribution from activists.
* Our institutions are referring to books they don't like as "violence."
* Our nation's intelligence agencies have embedded agents into our corporate news media that works as efficient propogandists. Disinformation sourced from these agencies is disseminated through these channels, reported as facts, and then used as a cudgel to silence and censor critics.
Is the spreading of misinformation "free speech". I agree people have the right to have different opinions, but when those opinion have been proven to be false, do you give up the right to spread it? A bit of a slippery slope.
>Journalists and whistleblowers are being censored, monitored and even jailed.
Journalists have been censored for the past 200 years. I see it getting better under the Biden admin, not worse. Whistleblowers were a particular problem for the Trump admin, not so much Biden admin.
>Our biggest newspapers cannot report on majority held beliefs and perspectives without retribution from activists. Our institutions are referring to books they don't like as "violence."
Any proof on this?
Last one is just crazy.
Whistleblowers had a field day under Trump. Under Biden journalists are again being caught up in NSA surveillance, likely being illegally unmasked and then leaked to other members of the media. See Tucker Carlson. honestly, this isn't even about tucker. It's very likely illegal. These people are emboldened. Nothing ever happens to them.
The American Booksellers Association yesterday referred to their promotion of an "anti-trans" book as violence.
I think the last one is pretty easy to defend. Glen Greenwald documents this pretty extensively. All of our corporate media employ folks who previous worked for NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. They literally put them on TV with a moniker "Previous CIA Agent", etc. These people serve the purpose as "experts" and commonly report information from "anonymous sources" within the agencies. Their purpose is to effect public opinion. Recently see Russiagate, Boutygate, Hunter Biden laptop. The Iraq war and Vietnam War deployed these tactics too. We know for a fact that the CIA lied to us during the Iraq war. And they deployed these tactics. How is this crazy?
The New York Times has reported on this relationship between intelligence agencies and the media extensively in the past. It was scandal in the 70s! This stuff is still alive and well.
There's a reasonable threat in 24 that if the election is close state legislatures will override the will of the people and submit a different set of electoral votes. This was attempted in 2020 but thankfully failed.
Edit: 2016->2020
Communications carriers providing content-neutral service? Thank God the post office, USPS, FedEx, phone, fax, ISP, cell-phone, sat-phone, and handheld radio companies have the freedom to engage in partisan political censorship as they please. It would be a tyranny on those poor corporations were it not the case. Oh won't someone think of the shareholders!
I think the 3 people you listed would be highly unlikely choices.
As far as Haley or Desantis, I'll believe it when I see it.
Doesn't seem to matter which party you choose, both are pro war and pro big government corruption/cronyism.
At best I'll vote against the incumbent, at worst I'll vote third party.
The plight of being a 10%er is that you don't have voting power or money.
Also the Democrats' hands are tied, not being able to pass substantive non-financial legislation like HR1. Budget is one of the few things they can use this "reconciliation" to push through without filibuster, and so they're trying to use spending to solve everything.
I'm something between fiscal conservative, neoliberal, libertarian, and moderate. Labels are bad imo.
I don't like either, but I'd much rather have MMT government spending than for them to push interest rates negative to create even more private sector malinvestment. In that light, the current stimulus spending is actually a good thing for fiscal conservatism - it will make real CPI inflation that will reign in the Fed.
I don't think it was reasonable to expect Biden govern like a libertarian.
Biden has been pretty moderate. The Republican position on spending is so extreme it's pointless to meet it in the middle, and Biden has been restraining the progressive wing of his party (e.g. on the filibuster, etc). I also really doubt most Americans are that concerned about the government spending more money (and those that are are almost all squarely in the Republican camp).
TOTP/U2F are evil, by this reasoning.
(Whether the provision passed or not is not important, what matters is that it was proposed in the first place)
Please note that I am not an expert on this subject. However I have frequently observed Americans commenting on this forum and on Reddit that America is a republic but not a democracy. This confuses me so much.
edit: typos
Yes, you're correct. I should have been more accurate and said a Republic CAN be a Democracy, or specifically said Democratic Republic. I'll edit my post to clarify.
> I have frequently observed Americans commenting on this forum and on Reddit that America is a republic but not a democracy. This confuses me so much.
It's a political talking point that often gets interpreted as fact. Democrats want a more direct Democracy, specifically things like eliminating the Electoral College. In that case, because the Electoral College is specifically setup to tamp down the power of high population states which are generally Democratic (as in the party) strong holds. To that end, you hear them claim Republics are undemocratic, and the less informed of their ranks interpret this to mean Republics are mutually exclusive with Democracy.
In more academic circles, there are arguments about the validity of a Republican (the system, not party) government, but that's rarely what you're encountering.
If the king were elected, yes that could be true. I'm not aware of any system that does that though, and I'm not clear what point you're trying to make.
Because it's within the Senate's power, as he notes. Calling it "theft" is disingenuous. Using it as a pattern for future "theft" is especially strange when presidential elections have already been decided in the House.
An event like that would most likely shatter the country and probably end democracy.