To the extent that there are any, have any adult Republicans sought to assuage those “end of democracy” fears? I’m guessing most of our current crop of Repubs are getting cramps from grinning so hard, but aren’t there any who are (sort of) offended of being accused of such a thing?
To a republican, democracy means “I win”.
Yeah, they’re complaining about “the end of democracy”, too, because to them, “democracy” means “no votes from people who aren’t white, or who live in cities”.
Republicans win elections by preventing some Americans from voting, that’s been true for decades. The party is inherently hostile to free and fair elections, it’s baked right in to the product.
The only Republicans I see trying to assuage such concerns are Supreme Court justices like Barrett, who tried earnestly but clumsily to say that SCOTUS wasn’t partisan hacks.
But bear in mind that most Republicans today fall into two categories:
- Those who think that conservatism is more important than democracy, and if sacrificing democracy is the only thing that will save conservatism, they’ll do it.
and
- Those who genuinely believe Democrats are stealing elections (illegal immigrants voting, dead voters, artificially padding Biden’s totals, people voting multiple times) and that the GOP must take drastic measures to protect democracy. Bear in mind that two-thirds of Republicans believe 2020 was an election stolen from Trump. If you genuinely believe Democrats are rigging and stealing elections, then you must preserve democracy with some…undemocratic measures. This is why Republicans roll eyes at anyone who says they’re “ending democracy” the same way liberals roll their eyes at people who say, “You’re intolerant of my intolerance.” To them, you can’t save democracy without doing some undemocratic things, just like you can’t have a tolerant society without intolerance of intolerance, or how you can’t have peace unless you use violence against violent people.
“Democracy” as it’s been practiced in compromised versions? Originally male property-owners, excluding others who nonetheless benefit from the male property-owners? Gradually, grudgingly the latter admitted select segments of the former, but as it now stands 25 centuries after its birth in Athens:
-
You the boss, or you the loyal employees, who create wealth and social stability
-
Government bureaucrats who degrade that wealth and social stability with taxes and regulations.
-
The lazy, shiftless poor, and the crackpots who encourage them.
The issue isn’t the end of democracy. The issue is when group 1 will stop 2,500 years of obstructing its beginning.
I’m finding remarkably little pushback from conservatives against charges of undermining fundamental democracy. It appears that they believe that US democracy has become a rigged game by liberal socialists who have won over a majority of voters with “superficial language and virtue,” in Octopus’s words.
Therefore, since conservatism has lost the unfair war of ideas, election norms must be dismantled in order to save the country.
It’s not even just that. Rand Paul says that Democrats are stealing elections by getting legal voters to vote legally.
Lou Dobbs is an example of that belief:
The obvious answer is “Because there was no fraud”, but that answer is clearly wrong for Lou; it’s a problem in finding the evidence.
That. Living in a Red State, I’ve heard a lot about the crimes of Stacey Abrams, which basically amounts to “getting more people to vote.” This comes up because KY, from what I’ve heard, isn’t actually a Red State, and if someone convinced Democrats to actually go vote, there’d be trouble (i.e., democracy). It’s actually funny how often I’ve gotten the stink-eye for suggesting more people vote.
Oh, sure they’re offended, as they typically are when their misdeeds are exposed. But most of them are choosing to spend their time assuring us that:
- we’re not seeing what we think we’re seeing
- we should ignore Republicans appointing big-lie believers taking over state election boards, nothing will come of it
- gerrymandering, schmerrymandering, both sides do it.
- January 6th was just a big goof by a few nutballs, or
- January 6th was done by Antifa and therefore Very Serious
- Trump will never run again
- Unless he does
It’s basically the foolproof chicken-little argument… deny threats until they actually happen, and then move onto dismissing the new, bigger threats occasioned by the threats that they just finished ignoring. You can never be wrong!
See also: “of course Trump will transfer power peacefully, and you’re a nervous Nellie for suggesting otherwise.”
We had to destroy democracy in order to save it!
It seems to be getting difficult to find actual Conservatives in the Republican Party.
I think that Conservatism comes from your outlook on life. A real Conservative finds value in our great institutions – religion, business, and government – and wants to preserve them, not destroy them. If changes must be made, make them slowly and deliberately. Conservative positions arise from this outlook on life.
Anyone who wants to tear down these great institutions is a radical, not a Conservative. Trump and his supporters are clearly radicals, not Conservatives.
This is my sense. Thinking conservatives are either not voting, or they are voting for Democrats. Looking at some of the politicians that pass for Democrats, I’d say the latter is what’s going on. The Republican party is just concentrating mean-spirited and obedient bootlicking followers. Actual liberals and even just plain old centrists need a new party leftward of the Democrats. With any luck, such a new party will hold in check their less-reasonable elements in the way the Republicans failed to do. But this is definitely an exciting time to be a Yankee!
I also heard a conservative once define himself as someone who doesn’t embrace change without knowing that the change will be an improvement over the status quo. That is, he may acknowledge a problem needs fixing, but worries about rushing into things.
I found that to be a perfectly respectable perspective.
The British Conservative Party (or so I was taught in school history) dates (or used to) its origins to Robert Peel’s “Tamworth Manifesto” in the 1840s and its commitment to “redress of proved grievances”.
Sometimes in government they’ve responded more to the grievance than insisting on proof, and sometimes vice versa: whatever it takes to keep “the right chaps” in office - but essentially as that quote says.
In my experience there are 2 types of republicans.
-
The kinds who gaslight and accuse the democrats of being the real threat to democracy
-
Republicans who recognize what is going on and are horrified and disgusted at the GOP war on democracy. This group is much much smaller.
I live in Kentucky. It’s a red state. Unbelievably so if you discount Louisville and Lexington. Those two towns are pretty much the entire democratic voter areas.
As a former Republican who supports most progressive ideas these days-- but still considers himself conservative, I am greatly concerned about unintended consequences. But for goodness sake, is there not one elected Republican who can admit there needs to be some changes but the changes should be thought over firstly, and quantified secondly??? As far as I am concerned about slow and deliberate change (which I do still support), forewarned is forearmed. We know there are risks, we know what has worked before and what has led to a slippery slope. Try to eliminate unintended consequences and be ready to turn back if after [a significant amount of] time the plan fails. We know from the 50’s and 60’s that our greatest economy occurred when our tax rate was the highest. Why not raise a little tax for those who can most afford it and see how it works? But saying that to a modern Republican is like trying to teach a pig to dance. (A frustrating and dirty waste of time.)
We know from experience that government spending was very beneficial before, during, and after the war. We know the Marshall Plan rescued Europe and gave us trading partners who have become our strongest allies. But I have not heard one reasonable Republican speak since before McCain died. The most complicated idea I have heard from any member of my former Party would fit on a bumper sticker or at most require a message t-shirt. And each of those “ideas” is a chant used to promote tribalism.
There is also the problem that the great institutions have sub-sets which further inflame tribalism. For example, in my neck of the woods (actually desert), those who see themselves as conservative do not support religion; they support Christianity and want to marginalize all other religions (except Islam which they hate and want to eradicate!) They are pretty indifferent to small businesses (unless they happen to own one) but LOVE to give big business every tax break and eliminate every environmental regulation for them. They like government which legislates things like sex and abortion under a “family values” banner – but despise any form of social safety net which they label as “welfare” for lazy, shiftless, lesser people. Ironically, these same people who complain about a “nanny state” handing out money – well over half of them take government money in at least one form. I know very high wage earners whom take all kinds of money for disability of their kids who are very able to work; most of them take social security even though they do not need it one bit.
When I started seeing the hypocrisy in my own life, I changed my views and my behaviors. That makes it pretty easy for me to see what I fully believe to be the hypocrisy in the lives of my former tribe mates.
I don’t consider myself a Democrat, nor even a liberal. Really, I’d call myself a technocrat. Does it hurt anyone else? If not then society has no interest. If provably so, then we need to consider it. Does a problem require addressing? Quantify it and look to solutions.
I really don’t like when people ridicule states and cities for trying new things, like reallocating some police funding* or universal basic income. I’d be opposed to rolling such things out nationwide before they were proven to work, but we should applaud locales that try new things, adopt those that work, and be willing to end those that don’t.
*Whomever came up with the name “defund the police” was an idiot, because even if it were the best idea ever it was never going to fly. Maybe I’ll launch my new line of gourmet hot dogs and call them “Shit Sticks”