Why political forgiveness and cooperation won't be coming any time soon

Politics & Elections
101

Gerrymandering and reapportionment will be a problem no matter what we do.

I know you think all your Republican judges will let the states gerrymander to the point where a 50-50 D/R population will elect 90% R delegates.

But they’ve been trying to do this for years, which is why your contention that Republicans aren’t all fully committed to completely destroying democracy is ludicrously naive. “Democracy is OK only if we win” isn’t democracy, it’s Russia. I have no doubt that once the legislatures are solidly red, they will amend their Constitutions to get rid of elections and have the legislatures
pick the electors. If the Democrats hadn’t taken back the house in 2018, I have no doubt that the Republicans would’ve successfully overturned a fair and free election.

Which is all the more reason to celebrate the fact that democracy survived a full out years long assault by the entire Republican Party. I do understand that democracy is still on life support and the Republicans still want to strangle it dead. While I would like to pass “meaningful legislation”, I define “meaningful” as moving the needle in the direction of the Democratic platform and policies. Conservative legislation that moves us away from that is worse than no legislation at all.

So, legislatively, we need to push through as much as we possibly can in the limited amount of time we have left.

But, I’m not as confident as you that the Democrats are doomed. It’s true that gains for the opposition in mid-term elections are almost a given, historically… but the problem with “historical” extrapolations is there haven’t really been enough elections for the data to be meaningful.

Then there’s the problem you haven’t faced, the one you ignore in all your responses.

You’re* married to an abuser, the Trump wing of your party. You* were cool with it when he wasn’t abusing you. You liked to cheer on your nasty drunk dad while he beat and raped your sister cause you convinced yourself and everyone else she deserved it, but a small part of you knew that if you stood up for her because she was right - even if you didn’t like her, you’d get hit too.

In effect, you watched a runaway boulder careening down the mountain towards town, and whenever anyone suggested you maybe should take action to stop it, you called them names and told them if you let it pick up a little speed it would decide to stop on its own. (OK, I switched analogies midstream).

But now your irrational drunk dad stopped beating up your sister cause she gained a little power, and he’s a bully that only punches down. And he’s pissed at you cause your mean sister won and you lost, and drunk daddy doesn’t like losers.

You have a problem because you can’t stop the monster and he’s gonna rip you apart. And the first step in stopping the monster runaway boulder bully is admitting you have a problem, but you won’t do it. And your problem is complicated by the fact that the new Republicans are straight up grifters. MTG is milking her constituents for all they’re worth and Republican campaigns have become primarily money-making endeavors for consultants, but that’s a subject for another post.

I’m perfectly happy with where the Democrats are now.

I think the Democrats are playing their hand perfectly, so far, practicing good governance and keeping campaign promises while keeping Republican rage, violence and dysfunction front and center.

The gerrymandering is still a problem, but that might have worked out better for you if you’d kept doing it stealthily for a few more election cycles. That would’ve been the smart way to destroy Democracy. But the monster boulder wouldn’t let you* wait, forcing you to show your hand —- and now that what you’re doing is common knowledge it’s going to be a lot harder to pull off.

Republican judges, even really conservative ones, have a tendency to be more impartial than the people that appointed them would like. And they especially hate it when conservatives hand them cases that are so weak that they can’t take the conservative position without looking like a corrupt hack.

And I think the social media bans on disinformation have been effective and the QANON stuff will lose traction.

I’m writing a lot in this thread. For some reasons, the tone of the moderate Republicans — the whole “I’m concerned that unless the Democrats “swallow their pride” and “cave in”, a bunch of horrible things will happen to them is inspiring af.

For the first time in a long time I’m proud of the Democratic Party …I was never impressed with their strategy and I wasn’t crazy about Biden as a candidate, but I see now that I should’ve been.

So I think “We concentrate on good governance and fulfilling the promises made to 81 million votes while keeping all the Republican anger, violence and dysfunction front and center, while you keep at being you, is a very good plan.

*when I’m using the word “you” in this context, I’m referring to the Republican Party as an entity, their officials, leadership and philosophy, not any particular individual.

102

This will happen not matter how passive or aggressive Biden is. We saw this during Obama’s presidency. I don’t see any reason to think this has changed. Probably has gotten worse.

103

Someone had better be collecting and curating Ann_Hedonia’s posts from the last months. I want to display that book prominently on my shelf.

Damn right. It was gridlock and obstruction for the principle of it, and then stand up and whine about how “oh he’s just so divisive”.

104

I think this is right on track. As I see it there are several ways this can play out (percentages at the end of each scenario represent my pulled out of my ass guess as to the likelihood of that scenario.)

  1. We muddle along as always: Replay the last 12 years for the forseable future. We stay totally divided as a nation, nothing gets done. The Republicans keep their crazy side in check enough to keep Democracy going such as it is. Ownership of the reins of government swap back and forth periodically, dirty tricks and disfranchisement remain rampant, but no one is quite willing to give up on relatively fair elections (65%)

  2. The crazies overreact to the point that a solid majority of the country turns against them, but the crazies remain a dominant portion of the Republican base. Moderates flee the party and the Republican party is reduced to minority status for the foreseeable future. (15%)

  3. The crazies overreact to the point that the majority of the Republican base turns against them. The majority of Republican politicians and right wing media sources reject the crazies out of self interest. The crazies are completely marginalized as the country unties against them. The country finds its way back to 20th century comity. (13%)

  4. Anti-democratic elements within the Republican party succeed in taking complete power. We live under Russia style one party rule. (5%)

  5. As 4 but a strong resistance movement devlopes resulting in out and out civil war (2%)

There is also possibility 3a in which the Republican party politicians and right wing media reach decide to put party of self interest and unite against the crazies out of a sense of patriotism regardless of the personal cost. This is what should happen, but I rate is probability at somewhere south of 1%.

105

I think you’ve laid out a nice taxonomy there. And your percentages are reasonable given your assumptions. But …

Fact: There is exactly one thing in the USA that’s decided based on national percentages: The presidential election every 4 years. And even then due to the EC and the almost universal winner-take-all laws at the state level, it’s far from a straight national popular vote. As we’ve all recently seen and debated about a lot.

IMO from here on out …

It is not possible for your scenarios 2 and 3 to occur in the vast swathes of the country where the crazies and crazy fellow travelers are a large majority of the local populace. In those areas, scenario 4 is what must happen and therefore is what will happen. And almost entirely with insufficient anti’s being available locally to support scenario 5.

We’re driving towards a situation where the statehouse in some states is totally scenario 4. And the Feds either need to come in and take it over a la Reconstruction, or leave it be. Which Federal action will be very difficult to achieve politically when a bunch of that state’s Federal reps and senators are also cut from the same cloth.

We might be a 50/50 nation. We are not composed of 50 50/50 states, nor of 4000 50/50 counties. And that’s where the real power comes from. Not from the top.

106

Thanks, I’ve been having fun writing.

The truth is, the act of writing helps me think and helps me clarify my opinions and positions. I have a notepad full of half-finished posts, simply because while writing it out, I realize there is something that doesn’t fit, or I’ll go to hunt down cites or statistics only to realize they don’t support my opinion.

Sometimes I come back to it later, or sometimes I’m just like…oops, I guess I was wrong about that one. But the writing is central to how I process information.

Besides, when I retired I told everyone I was going to write…mostly because it sounded better than saying I was going to lounge around in bed all day every day watching TV and playing with my iPad. It still feels more like the latter than the former, but “promises kept”, I guess.

107

It looks like Mitt Romney might actually get the whole bipartisanship thing.

Here’s an analysis of a piece of legislation , The Family Security Act.

It’s amazingly liberal, for a Republican. It’s not perfect, it guts some existing welfare programs and benefits, but this analysis indicates it’s not that bad.
Now, this is the only piece I’ve read on the Family Security Act, but it seems like Mittens is really trying.

108

Me, too.

109

I just had a little flash of insight regarding the Romney bill.

By tying the benefit amount to the number of children in the family, the bill is especially attractive to people with large families. Like Mormons.

Now it looks like the benefits would max out at around Child #5, but still…this bill is going to be incredibly generous to Mormon families, who tend to have lots of kids — and therefore it would bring money into Utah.

110

Even if Romney were just looking out for his state (or church), it would put him far above other Republicans right now. Others only care about their own pockets, owning the libs and not letting any truths squeak out that might upset the trumpists.

111

Yes, he’s legislating how a normal legislator would.

112

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing Romney because this bill provides a possibly outsized benefit to his state. I also want to mention that after I posted about the bill I read some analysis that said that by limiting the number of children at all, Romney had leveled the playing field.

I don’t really agree, I think the limit is still high enough to benefit his mainstream constituents without being a windfall to the fundamentalist groups that believe in extremely large families.

He’s doing what a politician is supposed to do, representing the interests of his constituents. I think he’s also continuing to signal his willingness, if not his intention, to break with the Republican Party.

I’m not suggesting that he’s going to become a Democrat, but he might go independent at some point. I think he has a loyal enough following in his state that he might not need the Republican Party…or else, he’s not a young man and he’s just decided to follow his conscience and redeem his reputation for the remainder of his political life.

It was only a little more than eight years ago that Mitt’s mendacity, his role as the liar-in-chief of the Party of Lying Liars, was all over the news.

It just goes to show how far the ground under us has moved. I doubt Mitt has changed, but the standard has slipped so far he’s the Diogenes of the Republican Party.

113

Serendipitously, I picked up a copy of Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary yesterday, and it defines “forgiveness” as:

A stratagem to throw an offender off his guard and catch him red-handed in his next offence

114

Yes, Republicans have obstructed when they can’t get their way. I don’t like it but it is well attested behavior. So what? Two hundred sixty of our five hundred twenty-eight elected Congressmen/women are Republican. Republicans dominate 24 out of 50 states (31 out of 50 state legislatures). You can’t shut the entire party out of national politics because you say (with reason) they act in bad faith, it’s dangerously impractical. The Democratic coalition simply lacks the political power to unilaterally accomplish all their major goals.

I liked Biden’s move last week inviting the 10 Republicans to negotiate COVID relief, for instance. If Republicans only go so far as “here’s our offer, take it or leave it”, then by all means leave it (when that’s an option - not everything can go through reconcilliation). Contrast with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. That’s my image of shutting out the minority party. Don’t be like McConnell just because you have the power.

Because there are millions of them, including, as you note, many elected officials.

I say you can’t ignore/shut out the Republicans. I also say violence is not acceptable. These are the two major predispositions I bring to the discussion. I think that leaves some measure of cooperation as the only remaining option.

You say cooperation is not an option. But you say the Democrats need to “fight like hell” to keep Republicans out of power. If I assume, arguendo, that cooperation is not an option, then what is left?

~Max

115

I agree, this is a major issue. I think these people see themselves as patriotic, and there are parallels in the downfall of other republics. The road to hell, good intentions & such.

~Max

116

I didn’t say “do something, and the Republicans win”. I said go nuclear with the Senate and Republican backlash will be much worse than any benefits. There is a third option, which is to do something without going nuclear.

~Max

117

And they are good reasons! You write this as if it’s a put-down, but it’s not.

Regardless of party politics, my point was about faith in government as a whole and how that affects radicalism.

~Max

ETA: The forum says I can’t make any more replies until someone else posts.

118

…you haven’t articulated why you can’t try to shut the entire party out of national politics. The Republican Party have just done this for the last twelve years. What is impractical about doing exactly the same thing the same thing that was done to them? Again, can you be specific?

Your image and my image aren’t the same. What happened here is exactly the way I think it should happen.

And the evidence (that has been presented to the millions of people over and over again in the last few months) overwhelmingly shows that there was nothing wrong with the last election.

So why should we, in the month of February 2021 still be listening to people questioning the 2020 elections? Especially elected officials, who we know know better, and are doing this for the purpose of riling up their base?

I say they can. And they are.

Ummm, what is left?

Fight like hell.

119

In order to do anything in the Senate will require them to “go nuclear”.

So it truly does boil down to what I said.

Yes, they are good reasons. I didn’t write it as a put down, though, not sure what you mean in that regard.

But they are good reasons to support Democrats, not Republicans.

Right, but it is the party that they support that has crippled and villainized govt, so it is the party that they support that has caused them to lose faith in the govt.

It is as I have said on numerous occasions on this board, the Republicans keep saying, “The govt is the problem, elect us and we’ll prove it!” So people keep electing Republicans.

You can’t separate faith in govt from party politics, the Dems aren’t the ones who ran on “The nine most terrifying words in the English language.”

120

It’s because that’s a moral issue in what I approach as a pragmatic political discussion, and I don’t feel personally culpable.

I like that Biden is, or at least was, a centrist. I hope he can pull through and tame some Republicans to pass meaningful legislation, but I doubt he can achieve anything radical that way. I think the Republicans will really push the envelope past the edge with gerrymandering. I don’t think the courts will stop them, but I do think it will sort of backfire as more Republicans lose their cushy majorities to gain more seats overall. Not necessarily dummymandering but I do think the party as a whole will mellow out, significantly, to keep winning more seats. That’s my optimistic vision for a more moderate future.

~Max