And the cycle repeats: with the Democrats in control of both houses and an obstructionist (at best) Republican president, the Democrats will have two years in which to fail to accomplish anything while the situation gets worse, leading to enough apathy in 2028 that Vance is elected in a creepy landslide.
There’s a lot of ruin in a nation. Europe needs to adjust to the real possibility of a hostile and authoritarian United States which is economically stagnating. The US is headed towards recession, inflation, and stagnation due to supply chain inefficiencies afterwards. Most of the world’s people are governed in societies that are like that to one extent or another. I’ve read about them in the Economist magazine for decades.
Most governments do not control nuclear weapons.
I disagree with claims that the Dems never accomplish anything. We passed health care reform and extended it. We passed stimulus during COVID, which even went a little overboard. Biden had a number initiatives which he promoted poorly.
But if the Dems take everything in 2028, we’re still likely to have an authoritarian threat barring a defeat comparable to the one that hit Herbert Hoover in 1932. Institutions can only be rebuilt with cross-elite consensus and my prognostication ends here.
So I guess the filibuster isn’t so valuable after all. Fascinating. Maybe the Dems should do away with it when and if they regain power. But that might damage the bipartisan spirit so much on display in the House. Hrm. Tough question.
You would think that ordinarily almost no one wants to see a politician on a book tour (because you can see them all the time on a huge variety of media), but now lots of people would like to see him and the local media would cover his events–and he goes and cancels.
Weird!
Clearly the actions of someone who believes he’s done the right thing and that history will vindicate him.
You can’t hide from the voters forever, Chuck.
If they had nuked the filibuster and passed a voting rights act, they might have managed a majority in the house (you know the chamber with democrats that have some cojones) and would have some real power to use right now.
Instead they preserved a procedural tool they apparently aren’t willing to use for the most consequential votes.
Head exploding…
Today I got this email from Kamala Harris which starts:
Let me start by acknowledging the profound frustration, disappointment and – for some – outrage that I know some of you are feeling after Republicans passed a so-called “continuing resolution” last week.
I get it. Believe me.
No, Kamala, “Republicans” didn’t pass it. They didn’t have the votes to do so.
And how does Ms. Harris suggest we deal with this disappointment and outrage? Why, by donating to the DNC so they can continue to prop up useless scumbags like Schumer and Durbin!
There are no words for my contempt.
I just started blocking those “Harris Fight Fund!” emails weeks ago when it was clear that they were purely rhetoric designed to get more donations to the DNC and not to actually inform or inspire anyone to do anything effective.
I’ve never been a ‘Bernie Bro’ and I think that self-labeled ‘progressives’ (who would be moderates in any northern or western European parliament) like to push ideas for which they have no real idea how to implement or manage effectively, but I’ve come around to the view that the only way to fix the Democratic party, if that is even possible, is to break down the crony corpo-capitalist leadership from within and replace it with something that actually seeks to serve its ostensibly ‘base’ of middle and lower socioeconomic voters rather than plaintively appealing to them for their support and then turning around and saying, “Whelp, not this time; maybe in 4 years,” like Lucy Van Pelt yanking the football, or even better, smearing candidates regarded as ‘too progressive’ even though they are basically proposing the same ideas Richard Nixon was musing over in 1969.
“Fight Fund!” indeed; the question is, who are they really fighting, because save for about half a dozen voices in Congress it certainly isn’t the GOP.
Stranger
They did. They just didnt have the votes in Senate to bypass the filibuster.
They decided it was a bad idea to have a Government shutdown. They are playing 4D political chess.
Much of the media claims that the Democrats are in civil war following Schumer’s retreat. They really aren’t. The fight caucus makes a point of attacking Republicans, not Democrats. The fight caucus also emphasizes their opposition to the continuing resolution, as opposed to shouting about cloture.
Personally, I’m not outraged at the Schumer Maneuver even though it was a missed opportunity. Nor do I regret calling my Democratic Senators encouraging them to fight. I played my role. Any regrets are spending too much time doom scrolling.
As for political strategy, I’ll remind people that a number of filibuster opponents were among the Schumer Group and a number of moderates were in the fight caucus. Crushing Trumpism will involve winning in 2026 and winning in 2026 will involve victory among red state moderates. The DNC, DSCC and the DCCC all play their role. But so does Indivisible, Swing Left, and Charles Gaba’s campaigns on ActBlue. You don’t have to go all out Bernie Bros, and it’s by no means clear that tacking left is the optimal strategy.
My take. Policy is policy. Winning is winning.
Yea, but this accepts the party-line strategy that we HAVE until 2026. The President has, this week, defied a court order with impunity (or rather, with some rebukes but no real consequences).
Good luck in 2026. I’m sure Ds will sweep, but less sure that Congress will have any teeth left.
This might have been asked before in this thread- Are you saying the ends justifty the means? If not, what exactly are you saying?
Sometimes the ends do justify the means, other times not. But that was not what I was saying.
I was recommending that policy analysis be separated from the task of winning elections. Because they are different problems. Good policy isn’t necessarily popular policy. So run on popular policy and govern on good policy. Also, recognize that sufficient marketing can shift the needle on public opinion.
People will object to the preceding, arguing that I am playing advocating playing a shell game with the American people. Wrong. I’m discussing emphasis. I’m not advocating keeping secrets, which is at any rate is impossible or impractical. My point wasn’t especially deep, but at least it was short.
Dr Drake: The situation is dire. So citizenry has to act smarter. I’m not sure what that necessarily entails. I need to think harder!
ETA: Dire but manageable. Lots of people manage poor governance, people in middle income countries and low income countries. Where most people reside.
Schumer went on The View today to explain why immediately surrendering like a gutless coward was the wise thing to do and how he’s the best at Senating and to please buy his book that he’s too afraid of voters to promote in public.
The hosts weren’t buying it. (Video in the links.)
The media tour continued with a visit to a highly skeptical Chris Hayes.
Trump said it because he’s a smart man.
Schumer marched into hell for a heavenly cause. Every time a judge rules against a MAGA action, Chuck should be given credit. Because if it wasn’t for Schumer, we’d be in a fiscal year long so-called shutdown during which the Republicans would declare whatever government functions they like or dislike essential or non-essential, and liberal litigators could do nothing about it.
What’s disturbing about this is that, so long as there are still fairly free elections, caudillos get defeated only with a unified opposition – and I have never seen the opposition so disunified. I’m not talking about Democrats disagreeing with each other. That’s fine. It’s the outrage because of not liking a tactical decision that is worrisome to me.
For many years, American politicians have been saying the important thing is to fight. This is nonsense. Sometimes you should take an action analogous to fighting, and sometimes you should appease. The idea that you beat Trump by doing the opposite of what he says to do is bad strategy.
What about next year? If Trump is patient, he can let the courts stop him in fiscal year 2025, and then play the same continuing resolution game starting on October 1, 2025. At this rate, Schumer will not have the political capital to block a dictatorship masking as a shutdown then. .
We’re in that situation right now and it’s because of Schumer.
Peace in our time!
Here’s the situation Trump is in today:
If we were in a shutdown, Musk’s lawyers would say they can’t fund USAID because of the Anti-Deficiency Act, and I don’t see how the courts would stop that. Now, Trump is refusing to expend appropriated funds, which is illegal. Starting October 1, if the anti-Schumer Democrats triumph, Trump can, I think successfully, say he isn’t allowed to fund USAID.
Republicans said Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran was appeasement, and that was mostly true. It was nonetheless a good deal for peace.
Do we need a Neville Chamberlain thread? The scary thing for me is how fixed the idea is of Chamberlain’s badness. Is Schumer the new Chamberlain in terms of many years of unfair internet treatment lying ahead?
And now we have our first member of Congress to openly call for Schumer to step down.