The republican party is inching closer to fascism with each passing year. This is about power and control and have proven that they will stop at nothing to get it. We're also seeing this type of authoritarian efforts occurring worldwide, not much different than in the 1930's in Europe. Democracy and our Constitution means nothing to them and they are intentionally crushing the rights of Americans to amass total control. Speak up, get involved. We must stop them.
It is exactly that. Seen from Europe, what happens in the U.S. now is fascism hatching from the same egg of contempt for knowledge, democracy, and the citizens' call to educate themselves. All to be replaced by a highly fantasized reference to authority and "real" patriots. Demagoguery is the oldest trick in the world of politics for a reason. It works. And its formula is always the same. On the other hand, countless people wished they had countered Hitler's or Mussolini's rhetoric when it was still time, breaking the rules of "decorum" for the sanity of all and eventually saving the lives of millions. Fascists and bigots are their own dupes, but not addressing in a clear and direct way their fallacies makes us complicit in their present and future crimes.
Demagoguery incites emotions in people. The use of gaslighting, lies, distortions, and such are used to ignite hate, fear, sadness, and such in their followers who don't have the ability or desire to ferret truth.
It is lazy and cowardly to just go along. But ignorance is a big handicap! No wonder they do not value education and want to dumb down what we have now!
Marxism is an interesting term, the way it's used politically. Marxist is a literary critique word for "conflict analysis." Marxism is about understanding conflicting social forces. Does anyone here >deny< there is conflict in this society, and in order to deal with it we must first understand it? Nothing about it requires Communism or it's equally evil and distasteful twin brother Capitalism as the only way to remedy >any< conflict.
As a further thought, I suspect there's an attempt to overlay "Critical Race Theory," that nobody is teaching anywhere other than grad schools and the military, the same what Marxism has been overlaid. Personal perception, here.
Susan, They are more than inching! They are moving very fast and way too far! If we had an invading army our President would certainly make some moves against an enemy like this! We cannot wait until they mess up the vote just enough to get back in power! They are, if not breaking any codified laws, on the verge of making us unable to stop them at all. Poll workers are quitting! volunteers on school boards are quitting in fear. This is not coincidence, and it is happening in enough places that they could succeed! Threats of not just murder, but unspeakable acts of violence and torture while they are doing it. Those who have been threatened have reported that they are warned 'we will have you begging'.
I like the term "Retrumplican." Be advised, though. I got called-out above for "Q-publican." To me, it characterizes that whole conspiracy theory political eco-system.
The type of psychological help and historical context that you require is far beyond the expertise of this forum. It's probably far too late for you, but I'd suggest starting with Anne Applebaum, a conservative expert on authoritarianism and Heather Cox Richardson, a brilliant historian. Good luck, you will need it.
Typical of this blog is how every reasoned argument from the Right is countered by an ad hominem attack from the Left. But rarely, if ever, vice versa. I am an engineer and emphatically not a political scientist. I therefore deal in facts and data. Even so, I feel about dogma as Potter Stewart did about pornography: I know it when I see it.
Let's take this one comment you made about creating "loyal democrats" in the school system. Can you post a readable source for that one thing? - For me, I can tell you that the younger generation, due to technology, social media, etc, are more liberal minded. It's not because of the school systems. This country is simply more diverse now and most of America is now open to interracial marriage and gay marriage and open to a more liberal mindset. - Help me understand this, you believe the democrats have infiltrated media and schools - if that's true, how is it that Texas is only 40% white and a little over 50% female while our state government is 61% white and only 27% female. - Is this fair? The Republicans in our state have infiltrated our government that governs the schools. So, aren't they and the Republican school boards responsible for what you believe is a democratic school system? - then, should kids learn the facts about our racist past and what we did to Native Americans? I think they should because it's the truth. There can be a balanced way to teaching it I agree. But, Republicans here in Texas are banning books by black authors and asking schools to teach "both sides of the holocaust". There aren't 2 sides to that... There isn't any way to justify kidnapping people from Africa and shoving them in the bottom of a ship and making them work for free so we could get wealthier. That's the truth of what happened here. Do you disagree? Do you think men are better than women? Do you believe whites have more rights or are better than blacks? Do you think the makeup of a state's population should be close to demographics that live in it? - A lot of stuff here... But, I'm curious about your take on all of this....genuinely curious.... thanks Gina in Austin
You mention schools. A Texas couple --the Gablers, I believe--held the school-textbook industry in thrall for years, as their followers probably still do. Their insistence that education be dumbed down to Texas' level has stained compulsory education across the land ..
Excellent points. And ALL of our major media conglomerates are owned by the far right. Most giant businesses are as well. So there is an extreme bias to the right. I have already listed the names of those owning the media in a previous post, different thread. These right wingers call it being attacked when they hear the truth. We’re not letting them get away with this crap any more!
Very kindly and respectfully I ask, can you post unbiased sources to verify what you're saying here? Where do you get your news or facts? I ask both sides this same question. If you google "bias check" and the name of any source you use, regardless left or right, you can find whether they are biased and whether their new are truly factual. There are multiple sites that do this, owned by left and right companies/founders. You can cross-check your sources on multiple non-partisan sites. Most importantly, are you willing to accept it and own it and change your mind IF you are wrong? I am always open to being wrong and we all need to be. I am frequently wrong in my own life and when I am, it makes me learn and be better for making mistakes. So, I just ask that you take a deep breath, set aside your anger, open your heart and mind and do a little fact checking on unbiased sources. I am open to hearing what you have to say if you can support it with unbiased sources. All the best to you.
Please feel free to check. You might also be interested in checking the fact Republicans are far more inclined to watch both Fox and MSNBC & or MSM(left bias) which I believe gives them the advantage
With all respect to you, could I ask what your work status/field is and education level? Thanks!
I differ on several points but I will address just this one: The Media. Corporations own the media and set the media agenda. News coverage is timid at best, misleading at worst.
......more a matter of ommissions; for example, despite tens of million of U.S. average joes who were required to tighten their belt as never before, the trillion dollar Pentagon budgets just go on and on; nary a mention in the last two years in the media about this massive drain [that the GOP likes to say is a small percentage of GDP] that was being spent on black ops and Afghan warlords. That's some spin machine where right on cue, all discussions just disappear. How else does the power behind the power accomplish that--except silencing major media on the subject.
You can’t argue that most our Media is lead by radical Democrats
Add to that the fact all media corporations must keep shareholders happy. To maintain investments they must make sure their stock at the very least remains stable
That means they’re all under constant threat of Democrats CANCEL CULTURE
Interest that Cancel Culture was actually one of Hitler’s favourite tactics
Every single one of our major media conglomerates are owned by the ultra right including CNN. I have listed the owners on this site. Look it up! We’re not interested in people spreading more bull. It’s not going to work here!
Reaganomics opened the door to possibilities they’d not considered. Wealth and power became their primary focus, and they’ve not looked back since. As their power has grown, so also their greed.
I find this amazing that Retrumplicans of middle and lower classes don't see this flagrant need from politicians, their cronies, and the wealthy dark money families spearheading this. These people only care for their vote. They will be the first ones "controlled" by this new party if allowed to take control.
I used to ask my father why he consistently voted against his own interests. He said the Democrats were "a give away." When I asked him exactly what he meant by that, he couldn't answer. Jordan Klepper seems to be learning that fundamental truth of ol' Tweety's rallies.
I see. May I suggest instead: "solely on the >alternate fact<" anytime you characterize what is considered fact in the Q-niverse? The "Wicked Witch of the Word," Kellyanne Conway, pronounced that the Q-niverse >believes< in alternate facts her very own, personal self, for all the world to marvel at? The reason I suggest that is to make sure everyone in this and similar discussions remember they're trying to comprehend an alternate universe of alternate facts? Just a suggestion. The upside is that you'll never have to trifle with a word-wanker like me again on that issue!
They have no critical thinking skills. It’s like trump removed parts of their brains so they only have the ability to respond to ultra right-wing directives. Down the road a ways, those who haven’t died from Covid variants to come will be left in their misery wondering what happened.
What a scene at that rally. Thanks for the link. It’s difficult to believe some of these people, alive and adult in the 21st century, can twist their vision to believe utter nonsense and fantasy. Many of them to the point of violence.
BTW: Ms Connor, did you see how that old guy in the yellow, Q tee shirt began stammering in response to the question about whose fault Afghanistan was, at the end of that interview? That's >exactly< the response I spoke of earlier when I asked my father what he meant by a "give away." I mean, he got stopped cold when I asked what are the Democrats supposed to be giving away to whom? He answered with exactly the same "un, uh, uh's" Klepper got from that clown. That was fully-on 40 years ago. What you see in the video has festered for years.
A personal friend of mine, a Republican PhD in History, who has spent a lifetime in education, and I agree. What you're citing here is the >true< failure of public education in the US today.
He stokes emotions in them when he frightens them with murdering and raping immigrants who are going to take your jobs. He angers them when he mentions Muslims and people of color. He knows how to stoke emotions, and once ignited they are not open to reason or truth.
Yep! Those migrant farmhand jobs are hard to come by! Besides, I like how Mr Reich characterizes the way people aren't trampling each other in a mad rush for all those jobs restaurant owners are talking about being unfilled as "an informal general strike."
The days of bipartisanship between Democrats and Republicans ended when the Supreme Court allowed greedy corporations to buy politicians through Citizens United. This disastrous decision led to the red wave in the House and ultimately led to the birth of Trumpism. And that party is scarily getting stronger every day. Democracy has never been more endangered well before we were born.
There is powerful and dark money support for these horrific ploys by Republicans - from the Christian Right. I was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1976 - lasted just 4 years as I became acutely aware of the problems with the clergy and with the church. Now I am an avowed atheist. Churches primary impulse is to control people's lives with their myths and edicts that have no basis in science. As much as I fear the Supreme Court ending Roe, I am even more concerned of their clear tendency to deny the separation of Church and State in the First Amendment. There are so many clandestine forces, like the Family, who are replete with cash - dark cash - supporting a frightful move toward Theocracy which aligns so well with current Republican machinations. I love hearing your 'optimism', Prof. Reich, but I find it very difficult to feel any optimism at this point. A democratic majority is our only hope, I feel.
We have one now, but corruption and an impotent, corrupt Judiciary and an inadequate voting system, a media full of disinformation does not help voters much. To say nothing of our boobytrapped governing bodies, like the Senate 'Parliamentarian' who can crawl out of nowhere like something in Hogwart's washrooms! Can even a very educated populace make sense (and fairness) out of this 'system'?
We have got to have these conversations with more and more ppl. To educate them and to get them off the sidelines. We also have to work tirelessly to build coalitions so we are not challenging eachother (hunger games) but rather, collectively challenging the wealthy/powerful few to change the status quo. We have got to recognize and convey that collective action is essential to and arguably our only way to avoid minority rule (oligarchy). Our power, via democracy, is power in numbers. Government is our weapon. It has to be taken out of the hands of our common enemy- the wealthy/powerful few.
Ever since the "Moral Majority", an American political organization that was founded in 1979 by Jerry Falwell, a televangelist, to advance conservative social values. It notably opposed abortion, the ERA, and gay rights. Although it disbanded in 1989, the group helped to establish the religious right as a force in American politics, The GOP has change it's message to reflect that of Jerry Farwell's "Leviticus" based Fundamentalists' views.
Let's stop the assumption that the country is a democracy, please. America is a racist, militaristic, impoverished and backwards corporate abomination that the population and government serves. A plutocracy that harnesses consumers to a life of debt and ignorance. I'm sorry, but the exception proves the rule in this case.
I agree. Did you ever see the end of the original Planet of the Apes when Charleton Heston realizes he is on earth and we destroyed our own country after he finds the demolished Statue of Liberty? I feel like that....
Visual imagery is powerful, indeed. Many are stuck on "Gone with the Wind." What I see being acted out in the streets is an upside-down version of "V for Vendetta," complete with Guy Fawkes masks worn by the "finger men." "House of Cards" is exactly the same way between its original BBC version to the recent Netflix version.
But our reality is better than the movie! we can't make this stuff up! Reality is a puzzle, and it's all the more compelling if we have skin in the 'game', and it's not a game! We have to find a solution and not let these mental midgets succeed!
Oh, I completely agree with you. I just hold movies up as general models of events that take place. For example, have you ever seen one if the five ideal geometric solids? By definition, nobody has - nobody can. Yet you see those shapes everywhere in this physical reality. Same principle applies concerning my use of these models - fiction in particular. Consider living your life in a world in which only every word of the Bible is objective realty. By contrast, in my example I was able to rearrange the plot to approximate what I see going on. Please avoid understanding me as thinking the model is >the< fundamental reality. If I did that, I'd be a denizen of the Q-niverse.
America is a REPUBLIC of democratically-elected uh leaders, and much resembles the Rome that gave us res publica. Sure, citizens got to vote then, in 'tribes', but their system, like our Electoral College, assured that the power of a few ('Famous') families stayed with them ..
I'm assuming you know of Niccolo Machiavelli: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/ You usually hear the term "Machiavellian" brandished with regard to dirty politics. He was actually a minister in the Venetian government of his time - another democracy. Whatever the details, that democracy was overthrown by Lorenzo di Medici with the support of Rome. The Medici family originally "owned" Venice, but were thrown out and replaced by said democracy. To Lorenzo's mind, he was "taking back Venice" - compare that with "Take Back America." Being a minister in said democracy, Machiavelli wrote the "Letters to the Prince" in an attempt to keep his head attached to his neck. I conclude that Lorenzo read it, because he seemingly took some of its advice, and promptly denounced Machiavelli as the embodiment of evil. (After which he quietly pensioned Machiavelli off to the countryside.) The point here is Venice, too, was an early democracy. It wouldn't be much like anything >we< would call a democracy, but the kind of opposition that brought it down, I'd argue, is of exactly the same kind we face in the US today.
I think you're missing an important point here. By 1787 standards, this >is< a liberal democracy. That's my objection to promoting as a virtue that "originalist" or "constitutionalist" interpretation is anything but a tawdry lie - especially with regards to SCOTUS justices. The objective of that lie is to insure the idea of liberal democracy - as we've come to understand it - dies of crib death, and no progress in developing "a more perfect union" beyond 1787 will be tolerated. Seriously. I don't think "originalism" is what the Original Founders had in mind - at least the ones who weren't slave owners & traders, or rum runners and arms smugglers.
I failed to include the characterization "strict constructionist," with the other two. Consider - by contrast - a possible "Reconstructionist" interpretation. (I know of nothing called that.) It would stand against the kind of "originalist" interpretation that led to The Dred Scott decision. The justices on that court were nothing if not originalists.
That sounds a little snobbish! There are those who vote and pay attention and I think there are many very educated caring people who believe in justice for all and the Constitution (may need a little updating and codified laws to back it up), and the phrase 'To form a more perfect union' means what it says! We are always in transition and learning and trying and growing! So there!
I invite you to see my comment on just that thing a little farther down - earlier in this discussion. Look for "1787." You can probably use your browsers page search utility.
While I'm on the topic of keeping attention focused elsewhere, on 1/6, Sidney Powell, that crazy lady lawyer affiliated with ol' Tweety, was apparently making a legal effort to stop the counting under the 12th Amendment:
Now if you read that amendment, you should quickly appreciate that it's such a word salad that it means whatever-the-hell whoever interprets it >wants< it to mean. Here are 2 links for you to enjoy baffling yourself with:
Apparently, we're damned lucky - according to the crazy lady - that Pelosi wasn't one bit intimidated, and got things under way once order had been restored.
Actually, it's not a lie. They >do< intend to interpret The Constitution as it was interpreted prior to the Civil War. Even before they became Q-publicans, the Republicans' objective was to have the kind of SCOTUS that came to pass at the behest of ol' Tweety. Dred Scott, here we come. The lie they were spreading was that anything else was unconstitutionally "legislating from the bench." Compare that with how Christian Fundamentalists view the Bible.
Personally, I'd support any effort to repeal the 12th Amendment and replacing it with something intelligible and concise. The 9th Amendment is the model I have in mind.
In the improbable event that idea catches on, I doubt seriously I'd be alive to support it, actually. My health is good, but I'm old enough that the probability of my being around to see such an effort come to pass is remote.
Yep! Although the name they call the lie from time to time changes according to fashion - Originalist, Constitutionalist, Strict Constructionist - they all amount to the same thing.
No matter what you call it, it's embodiment now occupies a SCOTUS majority and it will likely affect all future SCOTUS rulings for a generation. While some were busy attempting to "Occupy Wall Street," the Republicans were successfully attempting to occupy the SCOTUS and using such "occupy" movements as part of the excuse.
I'm 66. When growing up, my grandmother, a red hot Democrat, explained the difference to me between a Republican and a Democrat with a story. It went like this: when a man is lying on the ground, clearly needing help, a Republican would step over him and tell him he needs to pick himself up but a Democrat would lend the man a helping hand. Rather harsh but mostly true. In today's world, she would probably add that the Republican would not only step over the fallen man but point at the one who wants to help and say no, you aren't allowed. Sad times.
You’re right. But I’m not optimistic like you. The GOP will take the House and Senate next year, the filibuster will be axed, collaborators Sinema and Manchin will officially become Republicans. Democracy is not elections; it is free elections and, for much of the country, that’s over. Democracy is abiding by results; for much of the country, that’s also over. When the Beavis and Butthead of the authoritarians, Trump and Carlson, take power and Marjorie Taylor Greene becomes head of the Gestapo, the revolution will begin. It’s coming, and I hope I’m alive, to participate. In a way, I agree with your optimism. But mine is for a distant future, a future of true freedom.
I think the answer is to wake up the majority of Americans who are ignorant of current affairs. There a a huge number of men and women who just don't care, are too busy to care, or too ignorant to understand what is happening. Let's educate those individuals.
That's been my passion and I was optimistic at first. I woke up to politics fairly recently and I thought that there would be more people like me in my friend group, but there isn't. I have sadly realized that most everyone is too self-involved to educate themselves. I do these events at my home called Vino and Voting where we all sit and learn about something political. 3 years later, the women rate themselves a 7 for political savviness but don't know the difference between the US House of Representatives and their state House. I am in Texas and I ask them in a poll, "who is your State senator" and 99% answer with one of our 2 US Senators. After the poll I explain, "no, that's your US Senator" and they look at me with blank stares. This means 1) they have no concept of state government and how it works 2) they don't know the representatives they elected or what they're doing in their state and 3) they think because they watch CNN or MSNBC or read articles on FB, that they are politically savvy. - So in the 3 years that I've spent trying to educate anyone I can, I am close to giving up. It feels like no matter what I do or how I say it, people can't admit that they really aren't politically savvy because there's a lot of shame... if they can't admit what they don't know, how can they be willing to learn what they say they do know... if that makes any sense....
Good that you are trying! Many of us grew up in families who learned not to discuss politics or religion. My grandfather made a point of saying "We don't talk politics or religion!" at the Thanksgiving table if there was a political conversation starting. It was not far past the McCarthy era and he was still scared.
It looks that way to me - particularly with Manchin and Sinema. I've witnessed that happen before. If the worst case comes to pass, I really hope those >not< living in ol' Tweety's "Q-niverse" have had the common sense to string those Tweety-boys up by their 2nd Amendment rights and make >damn sure< to exercise that right themselves. Their claim to doing so to protect themselves and their families >wouldn't< be a lie.
Riot! Beavis and Butthead! LOL! It's good to occaisionally have a laugh on this serious situation we are all in! But it is interesting, because we certainly would not be sleeping in such a scenario! I know that I am tired of hand wringing!
Also, we've seen your scenario play out in other parts of the world. If I recall, at least one northern African country voted democratically to scrap their constitution and impose Sharia law. I lost track of how that all played out. A memory prompt from anyone here would be welcome.
The Republicans have stopped the Democrats from governing as they would like by using obstruction and relying on the filibuster and lockstep voting. In this way they keep the conn even when not in power. If right-wing interference in voting holds they could continue to hold our government hostage for many years. This may be the tipping point.
And we don't have time for glacial changes in much needed laws. Even our environment is checking out in about 8 years, according to those scientists who know.
I put this to you: what else would you expect from a party whose party line is that government doesn't work. Help make it work better? The USPS under the current PMG is a case study of what I'm talking about.
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” (I know, Orwell was talking about Stalin.)
Moreover, ignoring the future consequences of present policy is canny and thrifty! Money is vital, but real stuff like food and water, soil and air, animals and humans are just corny fake stuff! Winning is everything and governing is for fools! When I assume that my actions don't affect you that makes it true, but I feel every butterfly's breath! When White men verbally abuse women, disabled people and LGBTIQ people, they're being hilarious! When White men verbally abuse Black people they're Just Being Realistic!
I think that GOP priorities have simply become clearer and more strident over the past 45 years.
Another excellent column, concisely written, well-focused and absolutely on-target. The Republicans were never actually in favor of small government; they were just against what they couldn't control, and they expected and demanded that the lower classes follow along.
They wanted government consisting of 'their' people ("the right people", in other words), with everyone else paying for it while recognizing their born superiority in all things. Think of it as a wealthy all-white upper-class country club where outsiders exist only to trim the grass and take out and dispose of the trash.
I've long suspected that this is a strain in American society that goes back well before the American Revolution, back to the days of the Dutch patroons in New Amsterdam, who just took ownership of whatever land they wished for their black and Mohawk slave laborers to work and thereby make them ever richer and more powerful. Our nascent 0.01%.
Many of our wannabe aristocracy hightailed it for Canada and the British Caribbean after Cornwallis gave up the battle but their ideology of classism with its social and economic hegemony lived on, baked into our society as an enduring sickness of inequality and attitude.
Of course our unofficial aristocracy sees no need to pay for anything through taxes. Never assume they would. They've learned to donate perhaps 10% of their wealth as publicly as possible, while retaining vast sums of money, corporate power and landed wealth and receiving the accolades of the lower classes for their supposed generosity.
Since Reagan they've managed to shrink or in many instances eliminate any need to pay taxes on their wealth. Occasionally those known as "old money" will demonstrate their supposed fairness and inclusivity by admitting into their ranks those of considerable "new money", when they can be useful to the maintenance of their power and social control.
And, of course, their acolytes learned how to use flag-waving uber-patriotism and nationalism to bring in vast numbers of adoring masses to give themselves electoral power as a safety hedge against equality - you know, that old hated "all men are created equal" nonsense that the uber-rich despised and eventually ignored.
Is this fascism? I don't know what to call it besides our version of the British class structure that most Americans, but not the landed gentry, thought we were getting away from in 1776.
What I do know is that Privilege will use any means, latch onto any malleable and angry groups, to continue their power and increase their wealth. Again, that small but intensely powerful 0.01%. So don't count on the resurrection of the Eisenhower progressive income tax, it just ain't gonna happen.
They are getting very close to 'winning' control. Election officials are being terrorized. even volunteers in certain states are being targeted and these criminals are succeeding in getting them to run away!
Let's hope the President can roll back some of the clearly unconstitutional anti voting laws and other moves they are making to end our democracy. We need codified laws on national elections, at the minimum. Where do states rights begin and end? If they are depriving citizens of our Constitutional rights and going against laws on the books they should be stopped! what about Executive Powers? The President is our Commander in Chief!
Unfortunately, they've become the American Taliban -- trying to legislate our morality. Being free means we can do what we believe is our right, but these home grown Taliban won't give the rest of us that right. their belief about abortion doesn't take into account the SOUL, which is what animates the body. Their twisted understand of our humanity shouldn't be the basis of our freedom.
The conversion of the Republican Party to the Fascist Party, sans name change, began well before Reagan. Why are his fellow fascists unwilling to give credit to Richard Nixon?
I think that more correctly, the Nixon impeachment so humiliated that party it affected them genetically, and they've evolved from that time. You see the same thing, the humiliation of Versailles - admittedly, it's not that simple, but it tracks the same way - was instrumental in the rise of fascism between "The Great War," parts I and II. (I see WWI and WWII as two episodes of the same war, separated by a "cold peace.") Indeed, Hitler made a special point of making France surrender in the same train car Versailles was signed in. I see everything associated with the Clinton impeachment as a parallel to that kind of revenge for humiliation.
A plausible insight, but monism is ever present to tempt us to one-dimensional views. You've grasped the elephant's tusk, but his limbs may be the "Southern Strategy" of Nixon or the infamous memo of Lewis Powell or the replacement of Thurgood Marshall by Clarence Thomas when Amalya Kearse was available.
I'd hardly describe my response as particularly monistic. It's only a different perspective on the same issue. Hell! Gov George Wallace had made a third-party presidential bid back around '68. But there was a certain humiliation involved with his segregationist stance being swatted down. That was his platform! "Segregation, segregation, segregation forever!" Then he got shot at the shopping center where I used to buy groceries. I'm just saying that past humiliation clearly a major driving force in it all. (For example, the humiliation of having to drink from the same drinking fountains and using the same wash rooms as those who they considered inferior?) What role would you say Jesse Helms' advice to like-minded Democrats to cross the aisle, dog-whistling Southern Democrats in particular, influenced that developing trend in the Republican party. Notice how all the Southern States have switched from Democrat to Republican. Nixon's impeachment only compounded that humiliation in the rest of the party. I remember >my< misgivings at the time, at how that would all play out in the future. That was >before< I was even particularly politically conscious. Even now, tearing down the statues of men that modern day "Confederates" consider heroes and striking the "stars and bars" from at least one Southern state's flag is adding an insult that seems to be driving the who movement totally irrational. I am simply seeing the "hearts and minds" perspective of it all. I'm not grasping a tusk. I'm attempting to understand it's soul.
Please understand. I'm not advising anything. I'm simply trying to relate what is - as I see it. For example, where do we find heroic statues to King George III in the US? The Confederacy is no different. I've always wondered how those monuments came to be, permitted to be erected in the first place. I'm agnostic about that issue, though. I have much stronger feelings about Founders who weren't involved in a bloody rebellion who had renounced their US citizenship and founded a foreign nation. That's >indeed< US history - not history of a hostile, foreign power we defeated in order to survive as a nation.
And don't get me started with the "bible belt" of it all. In that part of the world, slavery had biblical justification - and probably still does, to them.
Frankly, I am fed up with both parties! We need a whole new system - one that is progressive and perhaps no more two parties. Our system needs a total overhaul and it is the young folks who will do it.
It will have to happen fast! We don't have a lot of time for a generation to grow and come to power. Although there are grown young progressives hard at work as well as mature ones to mentor them, in positions of power and knowledge.
This seems somewhat naive to me, not the abdicating in favor of young people having to do it, but the idea that somehow the existence of a two-party system is bad. I know the last 40 years have looked a lot like that but isn't the "contesting of ideas in the public square" the working definition of democracy? The idea of "contesting" requires two or more participants in the process. Gathering tribe in support of your ideas seems to be inherent in human nature.
Our two-party system, and our first-past-the -post voting scheme, are woefully inadequate to encompass the the vast variety and nuances of this nation. Here's an example: I live in the country and I am very concerned about degradation of the natural environment. In which of our two parties do I fit? The Republicans pretend to be populists but actually govern as the party of big business that depends on continuing destruction of the environment for its business model. The Democrats give lip service to environmental concerns but do nothing because they have more pressing concerns. I am ignored by both, while the planet burns. In a multi-party system a green party, though a minority, could bargain for its interests and get concessions from the larger parties. With our two party duopoly though we safely are ignored.
Absolutely agree. To that I would add that we aren’t really one country: we’re fifty of them, with different cultures and different rules. It amazes me we’ve held together this long. It’s hard to imagine how that’s going to continue.
Therein lies the point of "states' rights." In the rest of the world, we refer to other countries as "states." For example, you can see London, England. You don't see Baltimore, USA, while the Capitol is a set up similar to the Vatican - harkening back to the ancient "city states."
Even the Vatican has weather, and the City State of Washington D.C. does too! Remember reading about Dust Bowl dust passing through the windows at our Capitol when representatives were debating a vote on bills to address the erosion that was happening in the 30's suggesting better crop rotation methods and planting suitable grasses, land management, in other words for the vast plains. When they felt that dust in their throats and eyes, they voted for the bills in question!
I would be curious to know your take about how Sheldon Wolin, the great American political analyst, was viewing party duopoly. To him, this mechanically reduces citizens to be voters and nothing else. Even though it is indispensable to confront opinions, having an institutionalized opposition over the heads of people is not the whole answer. "Electoral politics," as he called it, becomes the power game of the establishment. The challenge is to invent new forms of public debates aside and in complement of the political parties' specific role. Why only two parties, by the way?
Nothing in what I said suggests only two parties. I suppose the division into teams and susequent herd-thinning by competing in a capitalist model should be expected. I too am curious about new forms of public debate and tribal roles.
@Philippe ~ do you know anything about the Swiss 'Direct Democracy*" approach ? When I was in Bern / Switzerland in the mid 1980s staying at a friends house they had all kinds of "Fanfold" cards (posted to every adult citizen) to fill out on a monthly basis for a whole range of issues - sort of big and small referenda to have boxes checked on. - Then centrally tabulated and then acted on. I.e. the WILL and WANT of the people seemed to have some sort of effect and greater resolution on people's everyday lives.
I'm very much a believer of "People Power" will and can make a difference and some of the original "Nascent" ideas behind an "Electronic Town Hall" - but seems with the explosion of the inter-webs that rather simple idea has turned into complete chaos.
^^^ Swiss referendum to give every citizen (including children) - 7500 .(CHF)
"Known as the ‘Helicopter Money Initiative’ (Helikopter Geld), the money would be transferred to every Swiss citizen – including children. Pursuant to Switzerland’s direct democracy rules, if the organisers receive 100,000 signatures, the matter will be put to a vote. "
Just scratching about for examples of more 'Direct Democracy" as it seems in the USA the "entry and access points" for citizens to affect change incrementally and at a small scale to larger scales seems very limited. AND frankly regionally very disconnected.
Half jokingly - I would like to see a RED state Dollar and a Blue state dollar as it seems here in the USA folks in the Blue States are paying for and propping up the RED states. (If we had literal Blue and RED dollars that had to be traded and exchanged accordingly the RED state inhabitants would see pretty quickly what their respective state's representative's "Politics and policies" do to rob their constituents of a fair wage and opportunity while the value of a notional RED dollar would start to plummet.). The Blue states would have to actively invest in RED poorer states.
By analogy,
The 1:1 correlation of the Anti-vaxers - in Red States, and mask wearing vaccinated people in Blue states is pretty striking. ~ I had "OG" - Covid 19 March 2020 - got VERY sick , not quite killed me, vaccinated in May 2021 (double vacced) break through case of Delta 6 weeks ago. It's tricky as where I live it's a "Purple" state that adjoins mostly RED states. The virus doesn't know it's crossing state lines !
BACK ON-TOPIC :-) : a multi party system / Federalist system could be interesting and actually not unprecedented in US history - I would however be worried that a very Right wing party would splinter off (basically a US Nationalist / near nazi party), A green party might splinter off, and the progressives might also further splinter off. - SEEMS right now that the progressive in the House (of representatives) might BLOCK the current " Reconciliation Bill" .
[In Germany they have and had even a right-wing Green party .].
As I understand it (I may be wrong) direct democracy in Switzerland is putting to referendum a variety of public issues for counties, or sometimes, the whole country to vote on. Why not? Even more interesting, in my view, is the principle of citizens' assemblies. In that case, a sample of volunteer citizens participate regularly in meetings where the debate is fed by all types of information that the participants may need. The info comes from experts in their respective fields and discussions are facilitated by independent actors so that the whole process can effectively become constructive. A referendum may then be organized, i.e. after citizens have duly examined others' points of view and been given valid information according to their needs. All the while the rest of the population can check on the debate on the internet. A referendum, then, makes total sense. You may want to look at the following example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/08/how-99-strangers-in-a-dublin-hotel-broke-irelands-abortion-deadlock
I think what Ms Funk may be alluding to is a system in which a third party doesn't destabilize one of the other two - a multi party system that's not weighted in favor of who has the most capital assets.
Exactly. We just saw a real life of example of how things work now. Democrats pared down their big bill to about half of its former self. Some things they cut were environmental/global warming. There is nothing supporters of these issues can do about it. What are they going to do, leave and join the Republican caucus? The Democrat leadership finessed them.
Now envision a better world where no party has a majority, only pluralities ie less than 50%. major party would have to make deals with one or more smaller parties to get 50% and get legislation passed. In my example, maybe ithe minor party would be a "green" party. And in a more perfect world. maybe the two bigs would vie for the support of the same minor party.
Germany. They are building right now their new federal government this way. Three parties are working out a program of government for the next few years: Liberals, Social Democrats, and Greens. A good example of responsible politics, by contrast with the "We'll shut the government down!" circus the GOP loves to play with.
Agree! It is one party that has slowly filled with people who desire power and are willing to manipulate the more ignorant among us to get what they want. We have so many Americans that respond emotionally to the gaslighting of immigrants, black people, abortion, cancel culture, CRT, government control, freedumbs, etc. Once emotions are ignited on "scary" topics, you cannot reason.
Why aren't Biden, Harris, Schumer & Pelosi pounding every day on the points you make in this article. Why can't Democratic leaders be as message-disciplined as the GOP?
The republican party is inching closer to fascism with each passing year. This is about power and control and have proven that they will stop at nothing to get it. We're also seeing this type of authoritarian efforts occurring worldwide, not much different than in the 1930's in Europe. Democracy and our Constitution means nothing to them and they are intentionally crushing the rights of Americans to amass total control. Speak up, get involved. We must stop them.
It is exactly that. Seen from Europe, what happens in the U.S. now is fascism hatching from the same egg of contempt for knowledge, democracy, and the citizens' call to educate themselves. All to be replaced by a highly fantasized reference to authority and "real" patriots. Demagoguery is the oldest trick in the world of politics for a reason. It works. And its formula is always the same. On the other hand, countless people wished they had countered Hitler's or Mussolini's rhetoric when it was still time, breaking the rules of "decorum" for the sanity of all and eventually saving the lives of millions. Fascists and bigots are their own dupes, but not addressing in a clear and direct way their fallacies makes us complicit in their present and future crimes.
Demagoguery incites emotions in people. The use of gaslighting, lies, distortions, and such are used to ignite hate, fear, sadness, and such in their followers who don't have the ability or desire to ferret truth.
It is lazy and cowardly to just go along. But ignorance is a big handicap! No wonder they do not value education and want to dumb down what we have now!
"fascism Marxism etc."?
Marxism is an interesting term, the way it's used politically. Marxist is a literary critique word for "conflict analysis." Marxism is about understanding conflicting social forces. Does anyone here >deny< there is conflict in this society, and in order to deal with it we must first understand it? Nothing about it requires Communism or it's equally evil and distasteful twin brother Capitalism as the only way to remedy >any< conflict.
As a further thought, I suspect there's an attempt to overlay "Critical Race Theory," that nobody is teaching anywhere other than grad schools and the military, the same what Marxism has been overlaid. Personal perception, here.
Susan, They are more than inching! They are moving very fast and way too far! If we had an invading army our President would certainly make some moves against an enemy like this! We cannot wait until they mess up the vote just enough to get back in power! They are, if not breaking any codified laws, on the verge of making us unable to stop them at all. Poll workers are quitting! volunteers on school boards are quitting in fear. This is not coincidence, and it is happening in enough places that they could succeed! Threats of not just murder, but unspeakable acts of violence and torture while they are doing it. Those who have been threatened have reported that they are warned 'we will have you begging'.
“Inching” close to facism?
No. Running toward it with eagerness.
What a sad and deluded, fact-free comment. You should be ashamed of your ignorance and mortified by the propaganda you mindlessly spread.
Totally agree. The comment uses Retrumplican false topics and ideas that are not at all true. Sad.
I like the term "Retrumplican." Be advised, though. I got called-out above for "Q-publican." To me, it characterizes that whole conspiracy theory political eco-system.
Yes, hw, that comment, and ones like it, are precisely what PBM was talking about.
The type of psychological help and historical context that you require is far beyond the expertise of this forum. It's probably far too late for you, but I'd suggest starting with Anne Applebaum, a conservative expert on authoritarianism and Heather Cox Richardson, a brilliant historian. Good luck, you will need it.
Typical of this blog is how every reasoned argument from the Right is countered by an ad hominem attack from the Left. But rarely, if ever, vice versa. I am an engineer and emphatically not a political scientist. I therefore deal in facts and data. Even so, I feel about dogma as Potter Stewart did about pornography: I know it when I see it.
And I'm a lawyer with 2 law degrees who recognizes desperation to avoid facts and resources when I see it.
Let's take this one comment you made about creating "loyal democrats" in the school system. Can you post a readable source for that one thing? - For me, I can tell you that the younger generation, due to technology, social media, etc, are more liberal minded. It's not because of the school systems. This country is simply more diverse now and most of America is now open to interracial marriage and gay marriage and open to a more liberal mindset. - Help me understand this, you believe the democrats have infiltrated media and schools - if that's true, how is it that Texas is only 40% white and a little over 50% female while our state government is 61% white and only 27% female. - Is this fair? The Republicans in our state have infiltrated our government that governs the schools. So, aren't they and the Republican school boards responsible for what you believe is a democratic school system? - then, should kids learn the facts about our racist past and what we did to Native Americans? I think they should because it's the truth. There can be a balanced way to teaching it I agree. But, Republicans here in Texas are banning books by black authors and asking schools to teach "both sides of the holocaust". There aren't 2 sides to that... There isn't any way to justify kidnapping people from Africa and shoving them in the bottom of a ship and making them work for free so we could get wealthier. That's the truth of what happened here. Do you disagree? Do you think men are better than women? Do you believe whites have more rights or are better than blacks? Do you think the makeup of a state's population should be close to demographics that live in it? - A lot of stuff here... But, I'm curious about your take on all of this....genuinely curious.... thanks Gina in Austin
You mention schools. A Texas couple --the Gablers, I believe--held the school-textbook industry in thrall for years, as their followers probably still do. Their insistence that education be dumbed down to Texas' level has stained compulsory education across the land ..
Excellent points. And ALL of our major media conglomerates are owned by the far right. Most giant businesses are as well. So there is an extreme bias to the right. I have already listed the names of those owning the media in a previous post, different thread. These right wingers call it being attacked when they hear the truth. We’re not letting them get away with this crap any more!
Oh, they hear .. something. 'What's that clamor down there in the street? Hey, they're pointing at us! Bury the story ..'
Very kindly and respectfully I ask, can you post unbiased sources to verify what you're saying here? Where do you get your news or facts? I ask both sides this same question. If you google "bias check" and the name of any source you use, regardless left or right, you can find whether they are biased and whether their new are truly factual. There are multiple sites that do this, owned by left and right companies/founders. You can cross-check your sources on multiple non-partisan sites. Most importantly, are you willing to accept it and own it and change your mind IF you are wrong? I am always open to being wrong and we all need to be. I am frequently wrong in my own life and when I am, it makes me learn and be better for making mistakes. So, I just ask that you take a deep breath, set aside your anger, open your heart and mind and do a little fact checking on unbiased sources. I am open to hearing what you have to say if you can support it with unbiased sources. All the best to you.
Please feel free to check. You might also be interested in checking the fact Republicans are far more inclined to watch both Fox and MSNBC & or MSM(left bias) which I believe gives them the advantage
With all respect to you, could I ask what your work status/field is and education level? Thanks!
I differ on several points but I will address just this one: The Media. Corporations own the media and set the media agenda. News coverage is timid at best, misleading at worst.
Agreed, except I would say, misleading at best, flatly dishonest more often.
......more a matter of ommissions; for example, despite tens of million of U.S. average joes who were required to tighten their belt as never before, the trillion dollar Pentagon budgets just go on and on; nary a mention in the last two years in the media about this massive drain [that the GOP likes to say is a small percentage of GDP] that was being spent on black ops and Afghan warlords. That's some spin machine where right on cue, all discussions just disappear. How else does the power behind the power accomplish that--except silencing major media on the subject.
You can’t argue that most our Media is lead by radical Democrats
Add to that the fact all media corporations must keep shareholders happy. To maintain investments they must make sure their stock at the very least remains stable
That means they’re all under constant threat of Democrats CANCEL CULTURE
Interest that Cancel Culture was actually one of Hitler’s favourite tactics
That doesn’t mean it’s the right way
Every single one of our major media conglomerates are owned by the ultra right including CNN. I have listed the owners on this site. Look it up! We’re not interested in people spreading more bull. It’s not going to work here!
Yes, I can argue, but I'm too tired. Media is run by bottom-feeders, I mean bottom-line see-ers ..
Reaganomics opened the door to possibilities they’d not considered. Wealth and power became their primary focus, and they’ve not looked back since. As their power has grown, so also their greed.
I find this amazing that Retrumplicans of middle and lower classes don't see this flagrant need from politicians, their cronies, and the wealthy dark money families spearheading this. These people only care for their vote. They will be the first ones "controlled" by this new party if allowed to take control.
I used to ask my father why he consistently voted against his own interests. He said the Democrats were "a give away." When I asked him exactly what he meant by that, he couldn't answer. Jordan Klepper seems to be learning that fundamental truth of ol' Tweety's rallies.
I find that most of the Retrumplicans base their actions and words solely on the fact that Democrats as a whole are terrible people.
"The fact?" I'll consider that an inadvertent choice of words. To turn ol' Tweety's words upside down for him, there are bad people on both sides.
From their point of view it is fact. From mine, it is not. How many times to you hear excuses that say "the Democrats are bad?"
I see. May I suggest instead: "solely on the >alternate fact<" anytime you characterize what is considered fact in the Q-niverse? The "Wicked Witch of the Word," Kellyanne Conway, pronounced that the Q-niverse >believes< in alternate facts her very own, personal self, for all the world to marvel at? The reason I suggest that is to make sure everyone in this and similar discussions remember they're trying to comprehend an alternate universe of alternate facts? Just a suggestion. The upside is that you'll never have to trifle with a word-wanker like me again on that issue!
They have no critical thinking skills. It’s like trump removed parts of their brains so they only have the ability to respond to ultra right-wing directives. Down the road a ways, those who haven’t died from Covid variants to come will be left in their misery wondering what happened.
For a little background on what I'm saying here, you may appreciate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eML-Ty9IW7A
What a scene at that rally. Thanks for the link. It’s difficult to believe some of these people, alive and adult in the 21st century, can twist their vision to believe utter nonsense and fantasy. Many of them to the point of violence.
Right. Klepper was on the ground on 1/6, as well. You might try tracking that down either on U-Tube of Googld.
BTW: Ms Connor, did you see how that old guy in the yellow, Q tee shirt began stammering in response to the question about whose fault Afghanistan was, at the end of that interview? That's >exactly< the response I spoke of earlier when I asked my father what he meant by a "give away." I mean, he got stopped cold when I asked what are the Democrats supposed to be giving away to whom? He answered with exactly the same "un, uh, uh's" Klepper got from that clown. That was fully-on 40 years ago. What you see in the video has festered for years.
A personal friend of mine, a Republican PhD in History, who has spent a lifetime in education, and I agree. What you're citing here is the >true< failure of public education in the US today.
He stokes emotions in them when he frightens them with murdering and raping immigrants who are going to take your jobs. He angers them when he mentions Muslims and people of color. He knows how to stoke emotions, and once ignited they are not open to reason or truth.
Yep! Those migrant farmhand jobs are hard to come by! Besides, I like how Mr Reich characterizes the way people aren't trampling each other in a mad rush for all those jobs restaurant owners are talking about being unfilled as "an informal general strike."
Besides, the raping and murdering are privileges reserved for a select few!
The days of bipartisanship between Democrats and Republicans ended when the Supreme Court allowed greedy corporations to buy politicians through Citizens United. This disastrous decision led to the red wave in the House and ultimately led to the birth of Trumpism. And that party is scarily getting stronger every day. Democracy has never been more endangered well before we were born.
The sort of neo-fascism we’re now witnessing is emerging from a cynical alliance between Trump racist-nationalists and corporate wealth.
There is powerful and dark money support for these horrific ploys by Republicans - from the Christian Right. I was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1976 - lasted just 4 years as I became acutely aware of the problems with the clergy and with the church. Now I am an avowed atheist. Churches primary impulse is to control people's lives with their myths and edicts that have no basis in science. As much as I fear the Supreme Court ending Roe, I am even more concerned of their clear tendency to deny the separation of Church and State in the First Amendment. There are so many clandestine forces, like the Family, who are replete with cash - dark cash - supporting a frightful move toward Theocracy which aligns so well with current Republican machinations. I love hearing your 'optimism', Prof. Reich, but I find it very difficult to feel any optimism at this point. A democratic majority is our only hope, I feel.
We have one now, but corruption and an impotent, corrupt Judiciary and an inadequate voting system, a media full of disinformation does not help voters much. To say nothing of our boobytrapped governing bodies, like the Senate 'Parliamentarian' who can crawl out of nowhere like something in Hogwart's washrooms! Can even a very educated populace make sense (and fairness) out of this 'system'?
We have got to have these conversations with more and more ppl. To educate them and to get them off the sidelines. We also have to work tirelessly to build coalitions so we are not challenging eachother (hunger games) but rather, collectively challenging the wealthy/powerful few to change the status quo. We have got to recognize and convey that collective action is essential to and arguably our only way to avoid minority rule (oligarchy). Our power, via democracy, is power in numbers. Government is our weapon. It has to be taken out of the hands of our common enemy- the wealthy/powerful few.
Ever since the "Moral Majority", an American political organization that was founded in 1979 by Jerry Falwell, a televangelist, to advance conservative social values. It notably opposed abortion, the ERA, and gay rights. Although it disbanded in 1989, the group helped to establish the religious right as a force in American politics, The GOP has change it's message to reflect that of Jerry Farwell's "Leviticus" based Fundamentalists' views.
Let's stop the assumption that the country is a democracy, please. America is a racist, militaristic, impoverished and backwards corporate abomination that the population and government serves. A plutocracy that harnesses consumers to a life of debt and ignorance. I'm sorry, but the exception proves the rule in this case.
I agree. Did you ever see the end of the original Planet of the Apes when Charleton Heston realizes he is on earth and we destroyed our own country after he finds the demolished Statue of Liberty? I feel like that....
Visual imagery is powerful, indeed. Many are stuck on "Gone with the Wind." What I see being acted out in the streets is an upside-down version of "V for Vendetta," complete with Guy Fawkes masks worn by the "finger men." "House of Cards" is exactly the same way between its original BBC version to the recent Netflix version.
>And< the current politics.
But our reality is better than the movie! we can't make this stuff up! Reality is a puzzle, and it's all the more compelling if we have skin in the 'game', and it's not a game! We have to find a solution and not let these mental midgets succeed!
Oh, I completely agree with you. I just hold movies up as general models of events that take place. For example, have you ever seen one if the five ideal geometric solids? By definition, nobody has - nobody can. Yet you see those shapes everywhere in this physical reality. Same principle applies concerning my use of these models - fiction in particular. Consider living your life in a world in which only every word of the Bible is objective realty. By contrast, in my example I was able to rearrange the plot to approximate what I see going on. Please avoid understanding me as thinking the model is >the< fundamental reality. If I did that, I'd be a denizen of the Q-niverse.
America is a REPUBLIC of democratically-elected uh leaders, and much resembles the Rome that gave us res publica. Sure, citizens got to vote then, in 'tribes', but their system, like our Electoral College, assured that the power of a few ('Famous') families stayed with them ..
I'm assuming you know of Niccolo Machiavelli: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/ You usually hear the term "Machiavellian" brandished with regard to dirty politics. He was actually a minister in the Venetian government of his time - another democracy. Whatever the details, that democracy was overthrown by Lorenzo di Medici with the support of Rome. The Medici family originally "owned" Venice, but were thrown out and replaced by said democracy. To Lorenzo's mind, he was "taking back Venice" - compare that with "Take Back America." Being a minister in said democracy, Machiavelli wrote the "Letters to the Prince" in an attempt to keep his head attached to his neck. I conclude that Lorenzo read it, because he seemingly took some of its advice, and promptly denounced Machiavelli as the embodiment of evil. (After which he quietly pensioned Machiavelli off to the countryside.) The point here is Venice, too, was an early democracy. It wouldn't be much like anything >we< would call a democracy, but the kind of opposition that brought it down, I'd argue, is of exactly the same kind we face in the US today.
Venice, not Florence? I must revisit ..
A "senior moment," to be sure!
MY BAD! Good catch. Florence!
S'alright. I boned up on the guy. He ran the place for over 20 years, following Piero the Gouty and followed--in 1492--by Piero the Unfortunate ..
My job here is done. Good for you. Hopefully, what I have said resembles what you're finding on your own.
I think you're missing an important point here. By 1787 standards, this >is< a liberal democracy. That's my objection to promoting as a virtue that "originalist" or "constitutionalist" interpretation is anything but a tawdry lie - especially with regards to SCOTUS justices. The objective of that lie is to insure the idea of liberal democracy - as we've come to understand it - dies of crib death, and no progress in developing "a more perfect union" beyond 1787 will be tolerated. Seriously. I don't think "originalism" is what the Original Founders had in mind - at least the ones who weren't slave owners & traders, or rum runners and arms smugglers.
I failed to include the characterization "strict constructionist," with the other two. Consider - by contrast - a possible "Reconstructionist" interpretation. (I know of nothing called that.) It would stand against the kind of "originalist" interpretation that led to The Dred Scott decision. The justices on that court were nothing if not originalists.
That sounds a little snobbish! There are those who vote and pay attention and I think there are many very educated caring people who believe in justice for all and the Constitution (may need a little updating and codified laws to back it up), and the phrase 'To form a more perfect union' means what it says! We are always in transition and learning and trying and growing! So there!
I invite you to see my comment on just that thing a little farther down - earlier in this discussion. Look for "1787." You can probably use your browsers page search utility.
It's almost 2022! Originalist thinking is passe. LOL!
It all relies on keeping our attention focused on the 1st & 2nd Amendments, rather than the 9th Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-9/
While I'm on the topic of keeping attention focused elsewhere, on 1/6, Sidney Powell, that crazy lady lawyer affiliated with ol' Tweety, was apparently making a legal effort to stop the counting under the 12th Amendment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9e5ZmLBzA&t=346s
Now if you read that amendment, you should quickly appreciate that it's such a word salad that it means whatever-the-hell whoever interprets it >wants< it to mean. Here are 2 links for you to enjoy baffling yourself with:
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/ , https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii
Apparently, we're damned lucky - according to the crazy lady - that Pelosi wasn't one bit intimidated, and got things under way once order had been restored.
Actually, it's not a lie. They >do< intend to interpret The Constitution as it was interpreted prior to the Civil War. Even before they became Q-publicans, the Republicans' objective was to have the kind of SCOTUS that came to pass at the behest of ol' Tweety. Dred Scott, here we come. The lie they were spreading was that anything else was unconstitutionally "legislating from the bench." Compare that with how Christian Fundamentalists view the Bible.
Personally, I'd support any effort to repeal the 12th Amendment and replacing it with something intelligible and concise. The 9th Amendment is the model I have in mind.
In the improbable event that idea catches on, I doubt seriously I'd be alive to support it, actually. My health is good, but I'm old enough that the probability of my being around to see such an effort come to pass is remote.
Yep! Although the name they call the lie from time to time changes according to fashion - Originalist, Constitutionalist, Strict Constructionist - they all amount to the same thing.
No matter what you call it, it's embodiment now occupies a SCOTUS majority and it will likely affect all future SCOTUS rulings for a generation. While some were busy attempting to "Occupy Wall Street," the Republicans were successfully attempting to occupy the SCOTUS and using such "occupy" movements as part of the excuse.
I'm 66. When growing up, my grandmother, a red hot Democrat, explained the difference to me between a Republican and a Democrat with a story. It went like this: when a man is lying on the ground, clearly needing help, a Republican would step over him and tell him he needs to pick himself up but a Democrat would lend the man a helping hand. Rather harsh but mostly true. In today's world, she would probably add that the Republican would not only step over the fallen man but point at the one who wants to help and say no, you aren't allowed. Sad times.
Today the man would be kicked by the republican and told not to get in his way again!
Yes, the old "bootstrap" generation; did you see any bootstraps on any of the Trump youngins ?
You’re right. But I’m not optimistic like you. The GOP will take the House and Senate next year, the filibuster will be axed, collaborators Sinema and Manchin will officially become Republicans. Democracy is not elections; it is free elections and, for much of the country, that’s over. Democracy is abiding by results; for much of the country, that’s also over. When the Beavis and Butthead of the authoritarians, Trump and Carlson, take power and Marjorie Taylor Greene becomes head of the Gestapo, the revolution will begin. It’s coming, and I hope I’m alive, to participate. In a way, I agree with your optimism. But mine is for a distant future, a future of true freedom.
I think the answer is to wake up the majority of Americans who are ignorant of current affairs. There a a huge number of men and women who just don't care, are too busy to care, or too ignorant to understand what is happening. Let's educate those individuals.
That's been my passion and I was optimistic at first. I woke up to politics fairly recently and I thought that there would be more people like me in my friend group, but there isn't. I have sadly realized that most everyone is too self-involved to educate themselves. I do these events at my home called Vino and Voting where we all sit and learn about something political. 3 years later, the women rate themselves a 7 for political savviness but don't know the difference between the US House of Representatives and their state House. I am in Texas and I ask them in a poll, "who is your State senator" and 99% answer with one of our 2 US Senators. After the poll I explain, "no, that's your US Senator" and they look at me with blank stares. This means 1) they have no concept of state government and how it works 2) they don't know the representatives they elected or what they're doing in their state and 3) they think because they watch CNN or MSNBC or read articles on FB, that they are politically savvy. - So in the 3 years that I've spent trying to educate anyone I can, I am close to giving up. It feels like no matter what I do or how I say it, people can't admit that they really aren't politically savvy because there's a lot of shame... if they can't admit what they don't know, how can they be willing to learn what they say they do know... if that makes any sense....
It's frustrating, but don't give up!!!
Good that you are trying! Many of us grew up in families who learned not to discuss politics or religion. My grandfather made a point of saying "We don't talk politics or religion!" at the Thanksgiving table if there was a political conversation starting. It was not far past the McCarthy era and he was still scared.
Knowledge is power!
It looks that way to me - particularly with Manchin and Sinema. I've witnessed that happen before. If the worst case comes to pass, I really hope those >not< living in ol' Tweety's "Q-niverse" have had the common sense to string those Tweety-boys up by their 2nd Amendment rights and make >damn sure< to exercise that right themselves. Their claim to doing so to protect themselves and their families >wouldn't< be a lie.
Let me hasten to add: and learn to use them!
Riot! Beavis and Butthead! LOL! It's good to occaisionally have a laugh on this serious situation we are all in! But it is interesting, because we certainly would not be sleeping in such a scenario! I know that I am tired of hand wringing!
Also, we've seen your scenario play out in other parts of the world. If I recall, at least one northern African country voted democratically to scrap their constitution and impose Sharia law. I lost track of how that all played out. A memory prompt from anyone here would be welcome.
I sadly agree with you.
The press still cover the gop as if it’s a participant in the political process when it clearly is not.
The Republicans have stopped the Democrats from governing as they would like by using obstruction and relying on the filibuster and lockstep voting. In this way they keep the conn even when not in power. If right-wing interference in voting holds they could continue to hold our government hostage for many years. This may be the tipping point.
And we don't have time for glacial changes in much needed laws. Even our environment is checking out in about 8 years, according to those scientists who know.
I put this to you: what else would you expect from a party whose party line is that government doesn't work. Help make it work better? The USPS under the current PMG is a case study of what I'm talking about.
They are so worried that people will vote by mail!
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” (I know, Orwell was talking about Stalin.)
Moreover, ignoring the future consequences of present policy is canny and thrifty! Money is vital, but real stuff like food and water, soil and air, animals and humans are just corny fake stuff! Winning is everything and governing is for fools! When I assume that my actions don't affect you that makes it true, but I feel every butterfly's breath! When White men verbally abuse women, disabled people and LGBTIQ people, they're being hilarious! When White men verbally abuse Black people they're Just Being Realistic!
I think that GOP priorities have simply become clearer and more strident over the past 45 years.
Yeah, especially since Jan 6, 2021!
I agree whole heartedly, but the seeds of the current mess have been there throughout my substantial lifetime. They have just become less ashamed.
I think my translation of GOP says it all: Got Ours Party.
Another excellent column, concisely written, well-focused and absolutely on-target. The Republicans were never actually in favor of small government; they were just against what they couldn't control, and they expected and demanded that the lower classes follow along.
They wanted government consisting of 'their' people ("the right people", in other words), with everyone else paying for it while recognizing their born superiority in all things. Think of it as a wealthy all-white upper-class country club where outsiders exist only to trim the grass and take out and dispose of the trash.
I've long suspected that this is a strain in American society that goes back well before the American Revolution, back to the days of the Dutch patroons in New Amsterdam, who just took ownership of whatever land they wished for their black and Mohawk slave laborers to work and thereby make them ever richer and more powerful. Our nascent 0.01%.
Many of our wannabe aristocracy hightailed it for Canada and the British Caribbean after Cornwallis gave up the battle but their ideology of classism with its social and economic hegemony lived on, baked into our society as an enduring sickness of inequality and attitude.
Of course our unofficial aristocracy sees no need to pay for anything through taxes. Never assume they would. They've learned to donate perhaps 10% of their wealth as publicly as possible, while retaining vast sums of money, corporate power and landed wealth and receiving the accolades of the lower classes for their supposed generosity.
Since Reagan they've managed to shrink or in many instances eliminate any need to pay taxes on their wealth. Occasionally those known as "old money" will demonstrate their supposed fairness and inclusivity by admitting into their ranks those of considerable "new money", when they can be useful to the maintenance of their power and social control.
And, of course, their acolytes learned how to use flag-waving uber-patriotism and nationalism to bring in vast numbers of adoring masses to give themselves electoral power as a safety hedge against equality - you know, that old hated "all men are created equal" nonsense that the uber-rich despised and eventually ignored.
Is this fascism? I don't know what to call it besides our version of the British class structure that most Americans, but not the landed gentry, thought we were getting away from in 1776.
What I do know is that Privilege will use any means, latch onto any malleable and angry groups, to continue their power and increase their wealth. Again, that small but intensely powerful 0.01%. So don't count on the resurrection of the Eisenhower progressive income tax, it just ain't gonna happen.
At the end of the day, I think we agree. Our only difference may simply be a matter of perspective.
They can't win without control of who votes
They are getting very close to 'winning' control. Election officials are being terrorized. even volunteers in certain states are being targeted and these criminals are succeeding in getting them to run away!
Let's hope the President can roll back some of the clearly unconstitutional anti voting laws and other moves they are making to end our democracy. We need codified laws on national elections, at the minimum. Where do states rights begin and end? If they are depriving citizens of our Constitutional rights and going against laws on the books they should be stopped! what about Executive Powers? The President is our Commander in Chief!
Unfortunately, they've become the American Taliban -- trying to legislate our morality. Being free means we can do what we believe is our right, but these home grown Taliban won't give the rest of us that right. their belief about abortion doesn't take into account the SOUL, which is what animates the body. Their twisted understand of our humanity shouldn't be the basis of our freedom.
The conversion of the Republican Party to the Fascist Party, sans name change, began well before Reagan. Why are his fellow fascists unwilling to give credit to Richard Nixon?
Watching the watergate hearings I began to see the soul of the gop.
I think that more correctly, the Nixon impeachment so humiliated that party it affected them genetically, and they've evolved from that time. You see the same thing, the humiliation of Versailles - admittedly, it's not that simple, but it tracks the same way - was instrumental in the rise of fascism between "The Great War," parts I and II. (I see WWI and WWII as two episodes of the same war, separated by a "cold peace.") Indeed, Hitler made a special point of making France surrender in the same train car Versailles was signed in. I see everything associated with the Clinton impeachment as a parallel to that kind of revenge for humiliation.
A plausible insight, but monism is ever present to tempt us to one-dimensional views. You've grasped the elephant's tusk, but his limbs may be the "Southern Strategy" of Nixon or the infamous memo of Lewis Powell or the replacement of Thurgood Marshall by Clarence Thomas when Amalya Kearse was available.
I'd hardly describe my response as particularly monistic. It's only a different perspective on the same issue. Hell! Gov George Wallace had made a third-party presidential bid back around '68. But there was a certain humiliation involved with his segregationist stance being swatted down. That was his platform! "Segregation, segregation, segregation forever!" Then he got shot at the shopping center where I used to buy groceries. I'm just saying that past humiliation clearly a major driving force in it all. (For example, the humiliation of having to drink from the same drinking fountains and using the same wash rooms as those who they considered inferior?) What role would you say Jesse Helms' advice to like-minded Democrats to cross the aisle, dog-whistling Southern Democrats in particular, influenced that developing trend in the Republican party. Notice how all the Southern States have switched from Democrat to Republican. Nixon's impeachment only compounded that humiliation in the rest of the party. I remember >my< misgivings at the time, at how that would all play out in the future. That was >before< I was even particularly politically conscious. Even now, tearing down the statues of men that modern day "Confederates" consider heroes and striking the "stars and bars" from at least one Southern state's flag is adding an insult that seems to be driving the who movement totally irrational. I am simply seeing the "hearts and minds" perspective of it all. I'm not grasping a tusk. I'm attempting to understand it's soul.
We agree. A perspective, and a significant one. Just not the only one. And good advice about not trying to "rub it in."
Please understand. I'm not advising anything. I'm simply trying to relate what is - as I see it. For example, where do we find heroic statues to King George III in the US? The Confederacy is no different. I've always wondered how those monuments came to be, permitted to be erected in the first place. I'm agnostic about that issue, though. I have much stronger feelings about Founders who weren't involved in a bloody rebellion who had renounced their US citizenship and founded a foreign nation. That's >indeed< US history - not history of a hostile, foreign power we defeated in order to survive as a nation.
Let me hasten to add that I appreciate your structural/functionalist perspective, as well.
That not to even mention the fear aspect of it all.
And don't get me started with the "bible belt" of it all. In that part of the world, slavery had biblical justification - and probably still does, to them.
On reflection, I didn't even bring up the big sex hang-up of it all.
Ronald McReagan only focused it.
Frankly, I am fed up with both parties! We need a whole new system - one that is progressive and perhaps no more two parties. Our system needs a total overhaul and it is the young folks who will do it.
It will have to happen fast! We don't have a lot of time for a generation to grow and come to power. Although there are grown young progressives hard at work as well as mature ones to mentor them, in positions of power and knowledge.
This seems somewhat naive to me, not the abdicating in favor of young people having to do it, but the idea that somehow the existence of a two-party system is bad. I know the last 40 years have looked a lot like that but isn't the "contesting of ideas in the public square" the working definition of democracy? The idea of "contesting" requires two or more participants in the process. Gathering tribe in support of your ideas seems to be inherent in human nature.
Our two-party system, and our first-past-the -post voting scheme, are woefully inadequate to encompass the the vast variety and nuances of this nation. Here's an example: I live in the country and I am very concerned about degradation of the natural environment. In which of our two parties do I fit? The Republicans pretend to be populists but actually govern as the party of big business that depends on continuing destruction of the environment for its business model. The Democrats give lip service to environmental concerns but do nothing because they have more pressing concerns. I am ignored by both, while the planet burns. In a multi-party system a green party, though a minority, could bargain for its interests and get concessions from the larger parties. With our two party duopoly though we safely are ignored.
The environment is quickly refusing to be ignored!
Absolutely agree. To that I would add that we aren’t really one country: we’re fifty of them, with different cultures and different rules. It amazes me we’ve held together this long. It’s hard to imagine how that’s going to continue.
Therein lies the point of "states' rights." In the rest of the world, we refer to other countries as "states." For example, you can see London, England. You don't see Baltimore, USA, while the Capitol is a set up similar to the Vatican - harkening back to the ancient "city states."
Even the Vatican has weather, and the City State of Washington D.C. does too! Remember reading about Dust Bowl dust passing through the windows at our Capitol when representatives were debating a vote on bills to address the erosion that was happening in the 30's suggesting better crop rotation methods and planting suitable grasses, land management, in other words for the vast plains. When they felt that dust in their throats and eyes, they voted for the bills in question!
LOL! Well >there's< an instance of history repeating itself! Maybe they should've swept the forest floors! LOL!
I would be curious to know your take about how Sheldon Wolin, the great American political analyst, was viewing party duopoly. To him, this mechanically reduces citizens to be voters and nothing else. Even though it is indispensable to confront opinions, having an institutionalized opposition over the heads of people is not the whole answer. "Electoral politics," as he called it, becomes the power game of the establishment. The challenge is to invent new forms of public debates aside and in complement of the political parties' specific role. Why only two parties, by the way?
Nothing in what I said suggests only two parties. I suppose the division into teams and susequent herd-thinning by competing in a capitalist model should be expected. I too am curious about new forms of public debate and tribal roles.
@Philippe ~ do you know anything about the Swiss 'Direct Democracy*" approach ? When I was in Bern / Switzerland in the mid 1980s staying at a friends house they had all kinds of "Fanfold" cards (posted to every adult citizen) to fill out on a monthly basis for a whole range of issues - sort of big and small referenda to have boxes checked on. - Then centrally tabulated and then acted on. I.e. the WILL and WANT of the people seemed to have some sort of effect and greater resolution on people's everyday lives.
I'm very much a believer of "People Power" will and can make a difference and some of the original "Nascent" ideas behind an "Electronic Town Hall" - but seems with the explosion of the inter-webs that rather simple idea has turned into complete chaos.
_____________________________________________________________________
* https://www.thelocal.ch/20201020/switzerland-referendum-launched-to-give-every-citizen-7500-francs/
^^^ Swiss referendum to give every citizen (including children) - 7500 .(CHF)
"Known as the ‘Helicopter Money Initiative’ (Helikopter Geld), the money would be transferred to every Swiss citizen – including children. Pursuant to Switzerland’s direct democracy rules, if the organisers receive 100,000 signatures, the matter will be put to a vote. "
Just scratching about for examples of more 'Direct Democracy" as it seems in the USA the "entry and access points" for citizens to affect change incrementally and at a small scale to larger scales seems very limited. AND frankly regionally very disconnected.
Half jokingly - I would like to see a RED state Dollar and a Blue state dollar as it seems here in the USA folks in the Blue States are paying for and propping up the RED states. (If we had literal Blue and RED dollars that had to be traded and exchanged accordingly the RED state inhabitants would see pretty quickly what their respective state's representative's "Politics and policies" do to rob their constituents of a fair wage and opportunity while the value of a notional RED dollar would start to plummet.). The Blue states would have to actively invest in RED poorer states.
By analogy,
The 1:1 correlation of the Anti-vaxers - in Red States, and mask wearing vaccinated people in Blue states is pretty striking. ~ I had "OG" - Covid 19 March 2020 - got VERY sick , not quite killed me, vaccinated in May 2021 (double vacced) break through case of Delta 6 weeks ago. It's tricky as where I live it's a "Purple" state that adjoins mostly RED states. The virus doesn't know it's crossing state lines !
BACK ON-TOPIC :-) : a multi party system / Federalist system could be interesting and actually not unprecedented in US history - I would however be worried that a very Right wing party would splinter off (basically a US Nationalist / near nazi party), A green party might splinter off, and the progressives might also further splinter off. - SEEMS right now that the progressive in the House (of representatives) might BLOCK the current " Reconciliation Bill" .
[In Germany they have and had even a right-wing Green party .].
As I understand it (I may be wrong) direct democracy in Switzerland is putting to referendum a variety of public issues for counties, or sometimes, the whole country to vote on. Why not? Even more interesting, in my view, is the principle of citizens' assemblies. In that case, a sample of volunteer citizens participate regularly in meetings where the debate is fed by all types of information that the participants may need. The info comes from experts in their respective fields and discussions are facilitated by independent actors so that the whole process can effectively become constructive. A referendum may then be organized, i.e. after citizens have duly examined others' points of view and been given valid information according to their needs. All the while the rest of the population can check on the debate on the internet. A referendum, then, makes total sense. You may want to look at the following example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/08/how-99-strangers-in-a-dublin-hotel-broke-irelands-abortion-deadlock
I think what Ms Funk may be alluding to is a system in which a third party doesn't destabilize one of the other two - a multi party system that's not weighted in favor of who has the most capital assets.
Exactly. We just saw a real life of example of how things work now. Democrats pared down their big bill to about half of its former self. Some things they cut were environmental/global warming. There is nothing supporters of these issues can do about it. What are they going to do, leave and join the Republican caucus? The Democrat leadership finessed them.
Now envision a better world where no party has a majority, only pluralities ie less than 50%. major party would have to make deals with one or more smaller parties to get 50% and get legislation passed. In my example, maybe ithe minor party would be a "green" party. And in a more perfect world. maybe the two bigs would vie for the support of the same minor party.
Germany. They are building right now their new federal government this way. Three parties are working out a program of government for the next few years: Liberals, Social Democrats, and Greens. A good example of responsible politics, by contrast with the "We'll shut the government down!" circus the GOP loves to play with.
Agree! It is one party that has slowly filled with people who desire power and are willing to manipulate the more ignorant among us to get what they want. We have so many Americans that respond emotionally to the gaslighting of immigrants, black people, abortion, cancel culture, CRT, government control, freedumbs, etc. Once emotions are ignited on "scary" topics, you cannot reason.
Why aren't Biden, Harris, Schumer & Pelosi pounding every day on the points you make in this article. Why can't Democratic leaders be as message-disciplined as the GOP?
I totally agree. They seem to have missed the memo concerning "Propaganda 101." Joseph Goebbels conducted that course in the '30s & '40s.
They don't have to be, they have bigger purses!