No, I distinguish between ‘not wanting a democracy’ and ‘not trusting the elections’.
~Max
The real divide is between “Not trusting the elections” and “Not trusting the elections to give me what I want”.
Oh, you can try. But as I mentioned, Democrats have no power in a majority of state legislatures and only a razor-thin edge in Congress - not enough to act unilaterally on many issues without going nuclear, and likely to flip after the next election. The courts are presently stacked with conservatives who serve lifetime appointments, many of them appointed within the last four years.
There’s some room for unilateral action when it comes to regulations and legislation through budget reconciliation, but you can’t fix everything with regulations and budget laws. The Republicans used regulations, budget reconciliation and court proceedings to advance their “dismantle everything” agenda under Trump. That just won’t work for the Democratic agenda which aims for reform, not mere cuts. The Democrats have the ability to ‘undo Trump’ as effectively as Trump ‘undid Obama’, but as I understand it the Democrats want meaningful reform, not mere reactionary measures. You need more political power to do that; it’s harder to build than to destroy.
I’m not sure I understand. Do you think what Biden did - inviting the Republicans - was the right thing, or do you think he should have done what McConnell did and draft the bill in secret, then push it through quickly with no debate or negotiations? Or are you saying something else?
Evidence notwithstanding, there are still millions of people (including elected officials) who question the integrity of the 2020 election; these people still vote and you still must acquire some of their votes in order to pass meaningful legislation; therefore, you still cannot ignore them.
~Max
Well, I don’t think that’s true. I think Republican obdurancy will collapse as soon as it is in their interests to cave in, and I think it is possible to show them that parts of the Democratic agenda work towards their interests.
But I can, and I suspect many do. When it comes right down to it, it doesn’t matter why you got screwed by government, only that you did. There’s a threshold beyond which lies radicalism: after a certain point, the system is irrepairably broken and it doesn’t matter who broke it or why or how.
~Max
…what exactly did you think I meant?
And all of this is a result of Republicans that firmly rejected bipartisanship. There is nothing wrong with the Democrats doing the same thing.
And the solution to this is to fight like hell to get them out of power.
I haven’t advocated “drafting bills in secret and pushing them through quickly with no debate or negotiations.”
But its nice of you to acknowledge that this is what they did.
I expect the Democrats to follow the process and to simply ignore bad faith negotiations, which is what happened here.
The question was “why should we listen to them?”
You haven’t addressed that. They’ve been shown the evidence. And yet still they claim the election was stolen. No we don’t need to listen to them any more. Even if there are millions of them.
There isn’t an elected official in the Senate or the House who actually believes the election was stolen. But they continue that narrative for the sake of winning votes. Why should we listen to them even if they did “some of their votes in order to pass meaningful legislation?” Why would you give power to an obvious lie?
Max - politics is way downstream from media and society.
IMO what BB is proposing is that the D’s need to attack, and attack hard, at the level of media. If we can change the “facts” the Rs believe, we may still have no real hope of converting them into being Democrats, but we have at least some hope of converting them back into believing in democracy, not totalitarianism, as the governing system of our nation.
IMO talking about managing the widely split politics while accepting the widely split version of reality is a fool’s game; you’re doomed to fail before you begin.
I thought you meant Democrats could somehow shut Republicans out of national politics, and still pass meaningful legislation. “Oh, you can try” would be me pointing out that while you (Democrats) can try to do that, it won’t actually work.
Of course there’s something wrong with doing unto Republicans as they have done unto Democrats - by which I mean these sorts of shenanigans:
- drafting legislation in secret and pushing them through without debate or negotiations
- stacking amendment slots with minor things like effective date changes or title changes so the opposition cannot file amendments
- refusing to bring opposition-sponsored bills up for consideration at all
- refusing to bring a bill up for vote, even if there are enough votes to pass it, if it shows rifts in your own party
- blatantly false assurances to colleagues (both sides of the isle) about the nature of your legislation
- Using your VP-tiebreaker vote to “interpret” clear violations of procedural rules as consistent with those rules
These are all inherently bad faith procedures. That Republicans used these tactics before, does not justify Democrats who wish to use them now. You don’t combat bad faith with more bad faith; I mean, of course you can, but you shouldn’t. More importantly, none of these will protect the Democrats or their legacy when Republicans come back into national power in 2022, 2024, etc (which I see as inevitable). Any further erosion of minority party protections will backfire as Republicans are emboldened to hit back twice as hard. This leads to even further polarization and, IMO, to further radicalism and extremism.
“Fight like hell” is not a tangible solution. You’re tossing around this phrase like it’s some sort of magic bullet that will get Republicans out of power, but it doesn’t actually mean anything. “Fight like hell” is just a nonspecific phrase, and in this context it means you put all your effort into something, or leverage all your power to do something. “Fight like hell” does not answer the question “how?”.
- Republicans are in power
- Democrats gain bare majority but Republicans still hold significant power
- ??? (Democrats “fight like hell”)
- Profit!!! (Republicans lose their political power)
“Fight like hell”. What does it mean? Are you physically beating up Republicans until they agree to vote for your stuff? Are you locking them up in jails? Are you disqualifying the party and its elected officials from participation in the federal government, for treason/sedition? Are you mobilizing military forces to reorganize/administer Republican states? Are you docking Republican seats in Congress for eg: voter suppression in their respective states? Are you passing speech laws that criminalize mainstream Republican views? Are you auditing/investigating all of the Republican campaigns to harrass them out of office (and maybe put a few of them behind bars)? Are you changing the number of house seats by statute, or redistricting, or admitting new states? Are you censuring or impeaching Republicans? Are you engaging in bad-faith tactics (see above), appropriated from McConnell’s playbook, since Republicans are presumably incapable of good faith? Are you simply spending more on Democratic campaigns - outreach, advocacy, grassroots efforts, &etc?
That’s what McConnell and Ryan did, it was widely reported. But you haven’t answered my question unambiguously. It’s not clear if you expect Democrats to follow in Ryan/McConnell’s “process” of drafting legislation in secret and pushing it through without negotiation (after all Republican negotiations are presumably bad-faith and should be ignored), or if you expect Democrats to continue meeting with Republicans in good faith but not compromise unless the Republicans reciprocate in good faith (my idea of cooperation), or if you are talking about following some other “process”.
It follows, if you can’t ignore them, you must listen to them. Otherwise, you can’t pass meaningful legislation. I think I’ve brought my argument full circle, but I can’t understand your counter. I’m not making any connection between whether a person has been shown evidence and whether I need to listen to their concerns; If I were a Democratic politician, I’m not listening to their concerns out of some sort of altruism or search for truth, I’m listening because I need their vote and they won’t vote for me if I’m not listening. It doesn’t matter if they’ve seen all of the evidence or none of the evidence, that’s totally irrelevant to a politician’s motivation for engaging this person or pandering to their concerns.
~Max
Fool me once, shame on you.
Obama spent 8 years, first trying to appeal to Republicans’ sense of duty and reasonableness, then at least their sense of shame. They refused to even talk with him. Instead they spent their time attacking him personally, and those attacks became so fundamental to the new Republican identity that some random idiot became popular for questioning Obama’s citizenship.
And those were the good old days. The GOP is a heck of a lot crazier and shameless now than it ever was then.
So, as I have said in other threads, yes Democrats should give Republicans a path back to reality. They should welcome genuine attempts at policy discussion.
But they should expect Republicans to continue to act like monsters for the foreseeable future and not give an inch to them.
Do not advance them any favors expecting it to be paid back later, they won’t be. And don’t tolerate any bullshit CT, they must be nipped in the bud immediately.
Like, what are you going to attack? The conservative media sphere? We’re talking FOX News, Sinclair broadcasting, a bunch of small-time outfits, and many individuals and bots on social media. Due to Republican persecution complex none of these can be shamed into changing their viewpoint. They are all immune from direct government interference. There’s room to remove bots (and individuals) from social media but that only reduces future exposure, you can’t put the cat back into the bag for the millions who already question the 2020 election.
Once you assume these media operators and consumers are impregnable to rational argument (personally I think this is only sometimes true), I see no avenues for attacking through media.
~Max
That’s all reasonable, IMO.
I would personally prefer if Democrats continue to engage Republicans who spout conspiracy theories, when not pertinent to whatever law is under discussion. Pragmatically I don’t think it’s possible to do otherwise and still accomplish anything. But as far as personal preferences go I understand there’s room for disagreement (many people will want Democrats to refuse to engage Marjorie Taylor Greene until she disavows her crazy theories [or to never engage her, ever], even if she’s not bringing any of that up in the current negotiations).
~Max
…its not even that. Quoting what I’ve already told Max twice now:
The Senate was on a knife edge and it was a big thanks in part to the ground game lead by Stacey Abrams that turned the tide.
That ground game has to play out everywhere else. Not just in the swing states, not just at elections for President, for the Senate and the House. Georgia didn’t just magically happen. They had to fight for it, tooth and nail, and in the wake of that battle we are seeing the Republicans once again trying to claw back voter rights.
That is what I mean by fight. Because its easy to think that Biden’s won and “things are back to normal again” and to take a step back. But you can’t afford to do that.
The Democrats control the House, the Senate and the Executive. It seems obvious to me that it can actually work.
I’m sorry but when did I call for the Democrats to use bad faith tactics?
This is bothsiderism.
The reason why the Republicans pushed through legislation in secret without debate and negotiations, why they stacked amendment slots with minor things, refused to bring opposition sponsored bills for consideration at all, why they refused to bring a bill up for vote, the reason why they made blatantly false assurances about the nature of the legislation, the reason they did ALL of this was simple:
They didn’t fucking care.
A lot of it was opposition for the sake of opposition. A lot of it was just virtue signaling. Some of it was deliberate trolling. They didn’t care what was put into the healthcare bill as long as it hit the right talking points. Its a grift. Most of them don’t care about their constituents, they just want to get re-elected.
The current impeachment trial demonstrates this perfectly. One side is a masterclass of compelling evidence and a strong narrative and the other side is a complete joke.
So why exactly do you think the Democrats even need to adopt these tactics? They don’t need too.
I’ve already explained to you twice what I meant. I’ve explained it a third time in this post.
Just scroll up and read what I wrote again.
You are putting the onus on the wrong party.
The Republicans never reached out to the Democrats.
And the Democrats don’t need to reach out to the Republicans.
If the Republicans want to reach out then I don’t see why they can’t. But if they reach out in bad faith (like they did here) then they should get rejected. Which was exactly what happened.
No it doesn’t.
What does this even mean?
Why do you need their vote?
There are millions that voted for Trump in the last election. But millions more voted against him. In many cases the Republicans keep winning because (in various different ways) they have rigged the game. The focus should be on unrigging the game instead of trying to convert a voter we all know is going to not vote for you anyway.
This isn’t about “listening to the voters.” This is specifically about “listening to people that think that Biden stole the election, including the people that know he didn’t but continue to propagate that lie.” You are conflating the two things. The Democrats should continue to enact policy that helps and serves all Americans. And in the case of Americans who believe the conspiracy theory: if better healthcare and more money in the pocket isn’t enough to convince them to change their vote then pointless virtue signaling to try and get their vote won’t do anything either.
If you are morally neutral, you’re amoral, not pragmatic. And that’s not an opinion, it’s fact. It’s definitional, like “If your shirt is scarlet, you’re wearing red. You just can’t divorce morals from your political opinion and pretend it’s sone sort of high ground.
If you make policy without regards to morality, you end up with policies driven by nothing but naked short term self-interest.
You might make alliances with countries based solely on financial considerations, without regards to their human rights records and end up enriching countries that torture and murder their own citizens. You’ reject any sort of public assistance on the grounds that you don’t need it. You’ll decide public health is a waste of money because you aren’t sick. You might drive the country deep into debt in the middle of a booming economy just because you see an opportunity to turn a profit for yourself. You’d ignore the need for environmental policies based on “we don’t need to do anything because I’m old and live in the country.
You’d bankrupt and sell out the future of your country, because, without moral underpinning, there’s absolutely no reason to care about anything that happens after you leave this mortal realm.
And I was halfway through typing this when I realized I was describing 2020 Republicans. Which derailed my arc, because I was going to close with some sort of “who would want to live in a world like that?” narrative. But obviously, you do. Because you’re …transactional…, as Republicans like to say.
The position that politics should somehow be above questions of “right” and “wrong” is a horrible one. It’s uncivilized. I was starting to think that I might be being overly harsh by pointing at footage of Confederate flag bearing insurgents mobs beating cops with clubs and saying this is the Republican Party, but if amorality is the new standard, and expecting our leaders to have moral standards is less important than squeezing a few more low wage jobs out of an artificially overheated economy, there’s nothing defensible left. Nothing…
We could just play the same game and do it better. We’re smarter, after all and we are in power now. If we lose any subsequent election, that’s only because it was rigged, and we just won’t leave, OK? What’s good for the goose and all that…We can play that game, too…and we’ll have the media and tech companies on our side.
We could do a coup the right way, and show you how it’s done. We won’t try overthrow the government with Ford F150’s and big sticks, that would be stupid.
No matter what happens during the next election, we’ll just have CNN and the network news outlets just say we won. If you try to say anything otherwise on Twitter, we’ll just take it down and cancel your account.
Your side made the new rules, but we can still play. If you don’t want democracy, we could decide to stop defending it and concede it, without conceding to you. We’ll just take everything for ourselves.
OK, my side probably wouldn’t do this, because they are decent people, not like your side. There are only two possible reasons for someone thinking Donald Trump won.
- They’re stupid. They’re stone cold morons, who believed the biggest liar in the history of Western civilization. They’re idiots.
- They’re selfish assholes who hate America. They know who won, but they’d rather toss away almost 250 years of democracy rather than admit they lost.
I see absolutely no reason to pander to either of these groups. Because I’m someone that actually believes in democracy, our Constitution and founding principles (ie: a Democrat ), I believe these people deserve freedom of speech…much as I believe that the KKK has a right to hold rallies.
But that doesn’t change how I feel about these people. If you don’t believe that Biden legitimately won the election, you are a horrible human being. And I intend to use my right of association to cut these people out of polite society because they are savages, and I encourage all decent people to do the same.
If they want to stand on the street corner and scream that Trump won, I won’t hit them with my car, because I respect freedom of speech and the rule of law. But that’s the best they’re getting from me.
I have always took “transactional” to mean the same as “everything is for sale”.
You know what’s scary? This is exactly what maybe 50 million Americans believe has already happened.
That answers my question about “fighting like hell”. While it is possible the Democrats can pull off a blue wave in 2022 and beyond I don’t think it will happen - not to discourage them from trying, I think that’s the right thing to do. I would love to be proved wrong.
…but the “ground game” won’t pay off until 2022 at the earliest, if at all. And that’s a big reason why I think it won’t work - people voting in 2022 will care more about what happened in 2021-2022 than they will about promises made for 2023-2024. I strongly doubt Democrats can pin legislative setbacks on Republicans (even when it is the Republicans’ fault) when they boast control of both houses and the Presidency. The political apathy in this country is too strong for your average voter to look past the surface, IMO. Therefore Democrats need a plan to get things done before November 2022, independent of “fighting like hell” to get out the vote.
I hardly think Republicans are shut out of national politics right now. Specifically, the Senate is currently 50-50. As I wrote above, the Democratic party currently lacks the political power to accomplish their goals. Just as an example, the Democrats do not presently have the votes to overcome a presumptive filibuster and admit Washington, D.C. as the 51st state.
I must have read it into your words from post #125, “There is nothing wrong with the Democrats doing the same thing”, building upon my failure to comprehend whether you want Democrats to follow Biden’s example or Ryan/McConnell’s example. Or from my general confusion over what you mean by “fighting like hell” (now resolved). It’s quite easy for me to read your previous posts and assume you want Democrats to use bad faith tactics.
Even now you have not come out and said flatly that ‘Democrats should not use bad faith tactics’. I only infer your position just now, after you twice denied claiming that Democrats should, after you asserted that bad faith tactics are unnecessary (which I will immediately dispute to some extent).
If you think Democrats shouldn’t adopt bad faith tactics, then we can agree on that point. With regards to the necessity of bad faith tactics, in particular, I don’t think the Democrats have the votes to fulfil their campaign promises without A) Republican cooperation, or B) bad faith tactics, such as those listed in post #127. You have ruled out Republican cooperation and now you seem to argue as if the Democrats could get along without bad faith tactics, too. But it can’t be done, not in any way I can think of, at least.
To list a few subject areas: D.C. statehood, immigration reform, voting reform, criminal justice reform, and healthcare/social security reform. I assert that Democrats must either enlist Republican support or use bad faith tactics to pass meaningful legislation in these areas. Otherwise the legislation will be blocked by a filibuster.
You need Republican votes to overcome a presumptive filibuster in the Senate, and you need Republican voters for political pressure and/or possibly during election season.
~Max
In general, I do not attribute any moral rationale to politicians unless there is evidence that they take some moral action which goes against their self-interest. I’ll assume the morality flows from the constituents, or whatever power structure the politician stands upon.
We were talking about Republican politics. The definition of pragmatic I had in my own head, in that context, was one concerning… ‘cause and effect’ or ‘matter of fact’ political analysis; in this particular case, I don’t think my personal sense of morality has much of an effect on Republican politics. You clearly agree with me:
I do not argue that politics should be above questions of right and wrong. I do argue that in your dealings with politicians, it is naive to assume they will do what you think is the right thing.
~Max
It’s quite ironic, I bet millions view Trump and the 147 Republicans like the rest of the country (and world) views Stacey Abrams, who refused to concede after her gubernatorial opponent almost certainly stole the election from her.
~Max
…you really aren’t getting it.
Its about a paradigm shift. I’m not trying to predict the future. I’m not taking guesses on what will work and what won’t. I’m saying that America isn’t going to survive if you let what-has-become-of-the-Republican party gets power again. The only way forward for an America that wants to retain some semblance of normality is to keep them out of power.
You don’t think they can pull it off? Well congratulations, I don’t think they can pull it off either. I don’t have a lot of hope for the future of your country. All I can do is yell loudly from the sidelines that you need to get your head in the game.
That they won’t be able to do one thing doesn’t mean they are unable to do many other things. And they are doing many other things right now, at a very rapid pace.
The Democrats should not use bad faith tactics.
Is that good enough for you?
I haven’t ruled out Republican cooperation.
The Republicans have ruled out cooperation. They can’t negotiate in good faith. I didn’t even have to list all of the bad faith things they have done over the last few years. You did it for me.
You still aren’t understanding. The Republicans aren’t going to come to the table. If they decide they want a seat at the table but come to the table with the same-old bad faith negotiating tactics then they should get rejected.
But if they come in good faith then sure, give them a seat. But we all know that isn’t going to happen. My position is reflected in the reality as it is. Obama’s biggest failing was believing he could negotiate in good faith but the last 12 years have shown he was wrong. You are advocating for a return to the Obama era of negotiation. We all saw how that ended. You can’t afford to make the same mistake again.
With all due respect, I thought that was the point of this discussion.
Obama was a freshman by comparison. I think Biden has the potential to be another LBJ, and I don’t see any reasonable alternatives to some level of cooperation with Republicans.
~Max