US Politics: Cancelling Democracy

[Zorral]

GODS! They even called for "our geeked out army" to "give them (meaning Dems?) Their Red Wedding". 

From today's Jan 6th hearing. 

[LongRider]

This hearing is wild, and the witnesses are even testifying yet!     

[Martell Spy]

Well, you can't say Biden is doing nothing on abortion.

White House Privately Signaling It’s Moving Forward With Anti-Abortion Court Pick
Despite outcry from Democrats and reproductive rights groups, Biden isn’t backing off plans to nominate Chad Meredith, a source tells HuffPost.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chad-meredith-judicial-nominee-abortion-biden_n_62cc82d9e4b0451684664530

Quote

 

But the news is out, and Biden is facing fire from his own party and allies. Beshear called such a nomination “indefensible,” and Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said “the last thing we need is another extremist on the bench.” Eight national abortion rights groups issued a rare joint statement calling Meredith “unacceptable at any time, but especially on the heels of six Supreme Court justices taking away a fundamental right from millions of people.”

Late Monday, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) similarly raised concerns about the prospect of Biden appointing Meredith to a lifetime federal court seat.

“I do not think this is the kind of person that a Democratic majority should put on the bench,” Kaine told HuffPost.

It might have seemed like the White House has been backing off Meredith’s potential nomination given its silence in response to the Democratic outcry. But behind the scenes, the White House is apparently signaling that it still plans to move forward with his nomination.

 

 

[DMC]

Significant movement on the generic ballot for 538's panel with the overturning of Roe:

Quote

Beyond what states are doing to restrict or expand abortion access, there’s also the question of the issue’s impact on the 2022 midterm election. It’s early yet, but we’ve noticed a small trend in the Democrats’ direction in our generic ballot question among likely voters, not unlike that seen in some other recent polling. Back in early May, Republicans led by 5 points among likely voters (40 percent to 35 percent), but the GOP edge shrank to 2 points in early June (40 percent to 38 percent), and in our latest wave Democrats actually led by 1 point (39 percent to 38 percent). Because the FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll uses a panel, we’re talking about movement among largely the same group of voters, so this could be meaningful. 

That's not gonna last until November of course - and it's incumbent on Dem candidates to keep up the intensity on abortion all the way through.  But still, nice to see the general public appears to be directing their anger at the GOP rather than the Dems.  A rather refreshing contrast to these threads recently.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

And I thought your biggest gripe with these threads of ours is the distinct lack of Klobuchar in it. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

 

[Zorral]

That was eye-opening in a tragic manner: man we were duped, we fell for it, and wish we hadn't.

Noticed that neither the witnesses nor the Committee member even inquired into what the point of of these militias as one on the witnesses insists they are -- yes, yes they are, fer pete's sake! -- what do they want?  No mention of enslaving women and enslaving or killing every one who is a white male.

As for Biden's admin and the abortion Constitutional Crisis, this from a lawyer, is fairly eye-opening:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/you-must-read-this-2

Quote

 

.... To begin with, continuing to apply the “don’t do it if we are likely to get sued and might lose” standard drastically limits the scope of permissible government action.  Every action that moves the needle more than a tiny bit in the progressive direction is going to be met with a lawsuit.  And that lawsuit likely will be filed in a judicial district populated by conservative judges.  And those conservative judges are likely to rule against the Biden Administration.  So losing is a strong possibility in virtually every single case.

But much more importantly, applying the old standard lets the courts avoid public accountability for their new, dramatically more constraining, constitutional and statutory construction standards.  ....

 

 

[LongRider]

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That was eye-opening in a tragic manner: man we were duped, we fell for it, and wish we hadn't.

The wife of the dupe that went to the Capital was sure giving him the stink eye.  She ain't happy.   

[Zorral]

The two best bon mots -- the "Unhinged Meeting", and one that I did think up myself, on my own, over the weekend and even posted here, "they called seditious insurrection an election."  Though what I thought up was "They gave us a violent attempt at a  treasonous coup and call it an election."  Something like that. 

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, Zorral said:

As for Biden's admin and the abortion Constitutional Crisis, this from a lawyer, is fairly eye-opening

I could only read what you quoted and the first few graphs of the article, but the fear is not just being struck down by this reactionary SC (or similar lower courts).  I agree if that's all you're worried about, then just do it anyway -- if only to further demonstrate how reactionary this court is.  However, the concern is also - particularly coming from an administration's legal counsel - about the proper scope of a president's unilateral action.  That may seem like a normative concern that pales in comparison to the overturning of Roe to most, but it's not to me, and it's clearly not to Biden either.

[Zorral]

However, those who study violent authoritarian intolerant take-overs and civil wars tell us the doing nothing, i.e. centerism, is how these come into being.

And of course most males don't really feel in every fiber of their being what the overturn of Roe means for  women's futures, how very dreadful it is.  And clearly Biden, a Roman Catholic, doesn't.

Not to mention that it is unconstitutional and illegal.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

However, those who study violent authoritarian intolerant take-overs and civil wars tell us the doing nothing, i.e. centerism, is how these come into being.

I'm sorry but this really isn't relevant in this case.  First of all, if Biden issued an EO on abortion that did indeed go beyond the scope of presidential power, then not only would this SC obviously strike it down anyway - meaning it'd still effectively be "doing nothing" - but the three liberals would probably join the majority.  Second, responding to anti-democratic action with anti-democratic action is never the right solution.  And expanding the scope of the president's unilateral powers is one of the most dangerous anti-democratic actions within the US government's institutional design.

[James Arryn]

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

However, those who study violent authoritarian intolerant take-overs and civil wars tell us the doing nothing, i.e. centerism, is how these come into being.

 

Not particularly true. In fact, arguably the worst of all authoritarian intolerant takeovers, the Nazis, were explicitly tolerated because they were seen as a check on the other extreme, ie the communists. 

[DanteGabriel]

21 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Not particularly true. In fact, arguably the worst of all authoritarian intolerant takeovers, the Nazis, were explicitly tolerated because they were seen as a check on the other extreme, ie the communists. 

Supporting fascists to kill (purported) communists is a hallowed American tradition!

[JGP]

This got a guffaw out of me.

 

 

[SFDanny]

On 7/11/2022 at 12:27 PM, KalVsWade said:

It's Biden too. And Biden is in charge, regardless of how much actual power he's going to be able to drive here. 

Isn't it precisely the point that Biden is not, in fact, in charge of the Senate? Manchin and Sinema now hold the veto over the Biden agenda, and until that changes its pretty ridiculous to hold Biden responsible for not getting all of his economic package passed. Manchin played a phony game game all along to string his fellow democrats into negotiations in which he never had any intentions of reaching agreement. Sinema, likely has her own political ambitions, fanciful as they seem, for 2024 that motivates her actions.  If we want real change we still need to change the makeup of the Senate, and, probably even harder, maintain a Democratic majority in the House.

I agree with "It's Biden too" part of your argument, but Biden isn't responsible for not being able to persuade two Senators who clearly have put their own political agendas above the economic needs, and securing voting rights protection, abortion rights,, and a host of other reforms the US voters clearly support.

For me, it's too easy to fall into the simplistic view of it all is Biden's fault that not every thing he campaigned for hasn't got passed into law yet. Not calling your post simplistic, but I am saying is that what the Right wing wants to make this election about is Biden's faults - real or imagined. Which doesn't mean progressives or liberals should not criticize Biden where he needs to be criticized, but it does mean we shouldn't help the right wing shape this election into a personal vote on Joe Biden. Criticism needs to specific, real, and with ways forward. Or at least I think so.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I'm so frustrated with our seeming inability, as of yet, to pin Trumps absolute disregard for the law on him.

We can add likely witness tampering to the laundry list of criminal behavior that, as of yet, he has paid no consequences for.

Cheney: Committee informed DOJ that Trump attempted to contact a witness not yet seen in the hearings

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/12/politics/liz-cheney-witness-contacted-january-6/index.html

Is there anything that he will ever have to answer for?

It seems like there's an endless flow of excuses over what can't be done.

I'm growing suspicious that there's a lack of backbone at play, with so many stories right on the tip of the tongue, ready to so quickly tell the public how hard it is and blahblahblahblah nothing can be done, it's soo hard.

Tis very fucked up imo. Time for excuses is long past, it's time for snakehead cutting.

 

[James Arryn]

3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I'm so frustrated with our seeming inability, as of yet, to pin Trumps absolute disregard for the law on him.

We can add likely witness tampering to the laundry list of criminal behavior that, as of yet, he has paid no consequences for.

Cheney: Committee informed DOJ that Trump attempted to contact a witness not yet seen in the hearings

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/12/politics/liz-cheney-witness-contacted-january-6/index.html

Is there anything that he will ever have to answer for?

It seems like there's an endless flow of excuses over what can't be done.

I'm growing suspicious that there's a lack of backbone at play, with so many stories right on the tip of the tongue, ready to so quickly tell the public how hard it is and blahblahblahblah nothing can be done, it's soo hard.

Tis very fucked up imo. Time for excuses is long past, it's time for snakehead cutting.

 

Well, seeing as how the Condescending Asshole cup is up for grabs:

There are several factors at play here, only some of which are remotely recent. First, as I was wont to point out here fairly often years back and which inspired much bristling amongst some members here, America is (very) unusually devoted to a kind of active self-mythos…and even more interestingly have seemingly been cultivating it’s own mythology almost since it’s inception. For example, the way the FF are discussed can only really be contrasted with way other states regard ~ semi-mythological figures like Cleisthenes, the two Lucius’, Cyrus, etc. from much, much farther back in time, but who would never be cited as relevant ~case law in modern discourse. There’s a combination of idealized veneration and practical submission to their words that I can’t find any parallels with.
 

Canada, for instance, has no ~ ancestor cult about any of it’s founders or historical political figures with the obvious and completely rational exception of hockey players. Many post-colonial nations hold the primary Revolutionary figures in high esteem…say a Garibaldi or Simon Bollivar…but would never dream of citing these figures political writings as ~ ongoing applicable gospel in the here and now centuries later. And as mentioned, these Founding Fathers of Olympus were fairly mythologized beginning almost from their own times, and this prioritization of mythos says profound things about how America sees and does almost everything. As a friend of mine whose field is American history says, “Americans are very self-interested, but less in history then myth. Give Americans the choice between American history and American mythology, and they’ll choose the mythology every goddamn time.”

One of the ways this split view can be witnessed is the fact that America is, by almost any rubric when contrasted with comparable western democratic nations, incredibly right wing/conservative and authoritarian and consistently misjudges itself in this regard. America thinks of itself as far more progressive and at the cutting edge of spreading freedom within and without than it is, and cannot even accomplish what in other nations were fairly easily established adaptations to current issues like adopting reasonable gun laws or significantly lessening the powers/acceptability of religion in political discourse over time. To say nothing of the seeming perpetuity of such anti-democratic mechanisms as the electoral college and Senatorial imbalance.

And in virtually every instance of these powerful anachronisms are expressed as immovable by Americans because of SOME of the words those mythologized men of the late 18th century put to parchment lo those many, many, many, many, many generations ago. Even though very many of those FF actually saw the currency of their words as understandably ephemeral and subject to amendment far, far more than the generations of more contemporary Americans do. In fact 13 of the 27 ratified constitutional amendments were proposed in the first 14 years of America’s constitutional existence. The other ~ half of the amendments have taken about 220 years. Because the successors to the FF have increasingly viewed their words as inviolable far, far, far, far, far, far more than they did. Print the legend, as the saying from the great old documentary’The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance’ goes.

So this pursuit/construction of mythos is always both active and ongoing in American politics, and a lot of it is about/for the Presidency.. “ Tonight is the night ______ truly became President.’’ Even despite examples like Nixon, Bush et al studies show that a significant majority of Americans think that there are soooo many things a President just wouldn’t do. BECAUSE he’s President. As though divine anointment accompanies the oath of office. This in spite of the fact that most Americans distrust politics generally and politicians specifically, and despite the general truth that the higher you go up the political ladder, the more you have demonstrated a willingness to utilize and concentrate the elements of politics/politicians that Americans distrust. 
 

So any challenge to indicting a President like Trump is not just pushing up against his supporters, it’s pushing up against the mythos about the office AND the mythos of the FF. The latter expressed by the almost universal horror with which Americans view any possible ‘Constitutional crisis’, and the ethical, moral and legal gymnastics regularly performed to avoid such an Apocalyptic possibility. Whereas in other stable representative nations such crises are generally frowned upon but not seen as anything more than the ongoing growing pains of the body politic. Because no more weight is assigned to the judgment of the architects of their constitutions than would be assigned to any other group of political players from any subsequent era, and therefore any crisis/resolution is just a continuation of the same political process as has always been ongoing. 
 

Getting tired, more later possibly, but with an eye to the Cup of Condescension in US politics, allow me to again remind you of one of my greater qualifications; I am not American. 
 

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Well, seeing as how the Condescending Asshole cup is up for grabs:

There are several factors at play here, only some of which are remotely recent. First, as I was wont to point out here fairly often years back and which inspired much bristling amongst some members here, America is (very) unusually devoted to a kind of active self-mythos…and even more interestingly have seemingly been cultivating it’s own mythology almost since it’s inception. For example, the way the FF are discussed can only really be contrasted with way other states regard ~ semi-mythological figures like Cleisthenes, the two Lucius’, Cyrus, etc. from much, much farther back in time, but who would never be cited as relevant ~case law in modern discourse. There’s a combination of idealized veneration and practical submission to their words that I can’t find any parallels with.
 

Canada, for instance, has no ~ ancestor cult about any of it’s founders or historical political figures with the obvious and completely rational exception of hockey players. Many post-colonial nations hold the primary Revolutionary figures in high esteem…say a Garibaldi or Simon Bollivar…but would never dream of citing these figures political writings as ~ ongoing applicable gospel in the here and now centuries later. And as mentioned, these Founding Fathers of Olympus were fairly mythologized beginning almost from their own times, and this prioritization of mythos says profound things about how America sees and does almost everything. As a friend of mine whose field is American history says, “Americans are very self-interested, but less in history then myth. Give Americans the choice between American history and American mythology, and they’ll choose the mythology every goddamn time.”

One of the ways this split view can be witnessed is the fact that America is, by almost any rubric when contrasted with comparable western democratic nations, incredibly right wing/conservative and authoritarian and consistently misjudges itself in this regard. America thinks of itself as far more progressive and at the cutting edge of spreading freedom within and without than it is, and cannot even accomplish what in other nations were fairly easily established adaptations to current issues like adopting reasonable gun laws or significantly lessening the powers/acceptability of religion in political discourse over time. To say nothing of the seeming perpetuity of such anti-democratic mechanisms as the electoral college and Senatorial imbalance.

And in virtually every instance of these powerful anachronisms are expressed as immovable by Americans because of SOME of the words those mythologized men of the late 18th century put to parchment lo those many, many, many, many, many generations ago. Even though very many of those FF actually saw the currency of their words as understandably ephemeral and subject to amendment far, far more than the generations of more contemporary Americans do. In fact 13 of the 27 ratified constitutional amendments were proposed in the first 14 years of America’s constitutional existence. The other ~ half of the amendments have taken about 220 years. Because the successors to the FF have increasingly viewed their words as inviolable far, far, far, far, far, far more than they did. Print the legend, as the saying from the great old documentary’The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance’ goes.

So this pursuit/construction of mythos is always both active and ongoing in American politics, and a lot of it is about/for the Presidency.. “ Tonight is the night ______ truly became President.’’ Even despite examples like Nixon, Bush et al studies show that a significant majority of Americans think that there are soooo many things a President just wouldn’t do. BECAUSE he’s President. As though divine anointment accompanies the oath of office. This in spite of the fact that most Americans distrust politics generally and politicians specifically, and despite the general truth that the higher you go up the political ladder, the more you have demonstrated a willingness to utilize and concentrate the elements of politics/politicians that Americans distrust. 
 

So any challenge to indicting a President like Trump is not just pushing up against his supporters, it’s pushing up against the mythos about the office AND the mythos of the FF. The latter expressed by the almost universal horror with which Americans view any possible ‘Constitutional crisis’, and the ethical, moral and legal gymnastics regularly performed to avoid such an Apocalyptic possibility. Whereas in other stable representative nations such crises are generally frowned upon but not seen as anything more than the ongoing growing pains of the body politic. Because no more weight is assigned to the judgment of the architects of their constitutions than would be assigned to any other group of political players from any subsequent era, and therefore any crisis/resolution is just a continuation of the same political process as has always been ongoing. 
 

Getting tired, more later possibly, but with an eye to the Cup of Condescension in US politics, allow me to again remind you of one of my greater qualifications; I am not American. 
 

 

 

The mythological status with which Americans hold the Founding Fathers is absolutely problematic.  You short essay here is very well stated… may I share it?

[butterbumps!]

4 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I'm so frustrated with our seeming inability, as of yet, to pin Trumps absolute disregard for the law on him.

We can add likely witness tampering to the laundry list of criminal behavior that, as of yet, he has paid no consequences for.

Cheney: Committee informed DOJ that Trump attempted to contact a witness not yet seen in the hearings

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/12/politics/liz-cheney-witness-contacted-january-6/index.html

Is there anything that he will ever have to answer for?

It seems like there's an endless flow of excuses over what can't be done.

I'm growing suspicious that there's a lack of backbone at play, with so many stories right on the tip of the tongue, ready to so quickly tell the public how hard it is and blahblahblahblah nothing can be done, it's soo hard.

Tis very fucked up imo. Time for excuses is long past, it's time for snakehead cutting.

 

I want to see this chode perp walked as much as anyone, but idk if this is the crime that makes the most sense to get him on.  My understanding is that the criminal threshold for incitement is extremely high.  And maybe it should remain pretty high.  I think the hearings are right move, but I'm not sure they necessarily need to lead to criminal charges against him to be effective in cutting his power/ influence.  Also, there's still a ton of financial crimes he's guilty of that might be less dicey to charge him with.