Something to talk about…
The biggest mistake moderate Democrats are making is that they are governing to preserve institutional credibility while hoping that Trumpism will blow over, rather than preparing with grim fortitude for a society-wide confrontation with a fascist movement playing for keeps. /1
— David Atkins (@DavidOAtkins) May 12, 2023
I’m not particularly fond of takes that start out with “The biggest mistake Democrats are making is…”, but this tweet thread from David Atkins is interesting.
The biggest mistake moderate Democrats are making is that they are governing to preserve institutional credibility while hoping that Trumpism will blow over, rather than preparing with grim fortitude for a society-wide confrontation with a fascist movement playing for keeps. /1
What does this look like? Let’s take some examples. Democrats are trying to preserve the comity of the Senate so it keeps “working” after Trumpism dissipates, failing to get that the Senate is the barricade the fascists are fortifying to prevent us from stopping their coup. /2
The Supreme Court. Much of the center-left is terrified of expanding the court, worrying about future GOP expansions & the legitimacy of the institution, rather than understanding that the current balance, with Senate apportionment, is their siege engine against democracy./3
Democrats are terrified of backlash on “crime” and policing, refusing to partisanize the police problem, failing to understand that the fascists are counting on MAGA cops dominating blue cities as the frontline troops to beat down progressive resistance to the coup. /4
Democrats treat the gun problem as if they were debating people who simply don’t understand the origins of gun violence, rather than address what is happening: the MAGA glorification of a culture of political violence by people eager to kill Others and prepping for civil war. /5
Democrats are dealing with the anti-LGBT and abortion pushes as if they were passing moral panics to push against for votes, rather than a deliberate attempt to create a theocracy before the country secularizes–and cleanse red states of liberals while crushing blue cities. /6
We have to stop trying to preserve institutional norms to keep working until the fever breaks. It’s not going to break. DeSantis is working on enhancing Trumpist fascism without the chaos. We need to be preparing at all levels to fortify democracy against the coming trial. /7
The fascists see demographic disaster looming, & they are leveraging all the centers of power they can to seize total control. They don’t care how they have to do that, or what they have to break. Democrats cannot save ourselves & the nice institutional norms at the same time./8
It’s time to understand that the battle isn’t just to win the next election. You can’t win EVERY election. There are too many variables. Also, the fascist fever isn’t breaking. The battle is to stop the coup. That means changing the institutions to make the coup impossible. /9
That means BIG STRUCTURAL CHANGE, even if it feels a bit destabilizing. It means expanding the court, adding states, ditching blue slips, killing the filibuster, invoking the 14th, adding requirements for police hiring, and honestly talking about what the GOP is doing. /10
Is it a risk? Of course. But it’s NOT AS BIG AS RISK AS THINKING YOU CAN WIN ENOUGH ELECTIONS UNTIL THE FEVER PASSES. That sounds nice, but it is stupid. The fever isn’t going to “pass” with these people, and you’ll eventually lose an election. /11
As long as the public thinks it’s just politics as usual, they tend to behave thermostatically. Most won’t understand the consequences of Republicans taking power unless institutional Democrats and trusted public figures make it explicit. And note that it’s not just Trump. /12
A time of testing of powers is eventually coming, socially and institutionally. I expect the fascists to lose, but we stand a better chance of winning the more we have prepared explicitly for that rather than trying to seem like the nice sensible ones because polls said so. /end
So…
What do you think about this take? Agree with some it, disagree with other parts? Is there merit in what he says? If it’s a (mostly or somewhat) reasonable plan, what steps could we take to get there?
How do we support folks like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who are already fighting this fight. Which other people are already doing exactly what Atkins suggested? Because that’s one thing that annoys me – people saying that we should do X without acknowledging the people who are already doing X.
Open thread.
japa21
Simply put, I think he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Are there a few Dems that fit his description, ye. But if he thinks that the majority of “moderate” Dems do, he full of it.
Baud
Typical lazy Twitter meta political science BS.
Dorothy A. Winsor
I’m interested in the proposals in the last four paragraphs, though. Because it’s true that some institutions are screwed, especially the SCOTUS
Miss Bianca
I may agree with some or most of his conclusions, but I resent the way he gets to them. Yo, dude – SOME of us Democrats are actually aware that the GOP has gone full fash, thank you very much.
Plus, I admit, my knee-jerk reaction to anyone who starts criticizing the Democrats with “you know what YOUR problem is – !” is to say – as I’ve had occasion to say to emotionally abusive people in the past – “Yeah, I do, actually – it’s *you*.”
JPL
Although I posted a link to this article down below, it belongs here,
There’s No Such Thank As a Smart Fascist
It is truly astounding how quickly, holistically, and voluntarily Ronald DeSantis transformer-ed himself from the seemingly-inevitable President Damien (what up, Omen III fans) of democratic nightmares to Principal Puddingfingers, smearing his shitty evil custard all over the educational system and uncontrollably red-faced screaming at random kids for wearing outfits he doesn’t like and holding hands in the hallways while waging a war against fun, love, and happiness.
Link
Shane in SLC
Everyone seems to be ignoring Atkins’s qualifier: “what MODERATE Democrats are getting wrong”…
oldgold
Here we go again. Severely critiquing the fire department, while giving the arsonists a pass, for the town being on fire.
Edmund dantes
As long as the public thinks it’s just politics as usual, they tend to behave thermostatically. Most won’t understand the consequences of Republicans taking power unless institutional Democrats and trusted public figures make it explicit. And note that it’s not just Trump.
^^^ this is the main point. Dems aren’t doing this enough. Many old guard Dems still hold up bipartisanship as an inherently good thing. Dems politicians that came of political age of the 70’s to early 90’s.
There is movement in the right direction but some are still just starting to put their shoes on when the marathon is almost over.
Omnes Omnibus
Who are these moderate Dems? Also, one can work to preserve institutions while preparing with grim fortitude, etc. Even during the Civil War and WWII, we had people planning for afterward. We can just win; we have to have something other than wreckage at the end. I think a government with functioning institutions is a good alternative to wreckage. I am sure the usual suspects will explain how wrong I am and that we need to destroy everything in order to save it.
Another Scott
[Jen-Psaki] Who are these “moderate Democrats” you’re talking about? Give me some names. [/Jen-Psaki]
Too much Twitter-hot-takes and Democrats-are-doing-it-rong for my taste.
It’s kinda hard to go all in on Big Structural Change when one doesn’t have the power to make it happen. Politics is slow. Hoping for some One Weird Trick to fix everything and bring on some lefty political paradise is magical thinking and doesn’t work.
“You ran on Big Structural Change, but all you did was help create the best economy for the working and middle classes in the last 60 years, pass a few giant infrastructure bills, prevent a national abortion ban, and help appoint a bunch of judges. Why shouldn’t liberal voters call you Loooser McLoooserman and stay home??”
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
you pretty much lost me at David Atkins, and trying to break down the issues he flings at the wall here in that thread is like trying to eat an elephant with a knife and fork, but…
I guess this bit of gibberish sums up the problem with Atkins and other Do Somethingists and Green Lanternists: they have somehow convinced themselves that things like winning elections and majorities is, at best, secondary to politics.
lowtechcyclist
@japa21:
The thing is, it doesn’t take that many moderate Dems to protect the filibuster and blue slips, to keep D.C. statehood off the table, etc. [ETA: NAMES!] A Mark Warner here, a Joe Manchin there, an Angus King (independent, but caucuses w/Dems) too – we’re not even close even after Gallego replaces Sinema, assuming he’s successful.
So I think he’s got a real point.
Jeffro
Hob
It’s just bizarre to me that someone would make a list of things we should consider pushing for like expanding the Supreme Court, and then throw “adding states” in there as if they think that is a remotely feasible thing to pursue. How the hell does Atkins think that’s supposed to happen and does he honestly believe the main obstacle is “moderate Democrats”?? I mean, I don’t disagree with everything in this piece, but that kind of thing being just casually tossed off strongly suggests that he gives no thought to what he writes, and makes me not really care to read any further because honestly the stuff I do agree with is not rocket science and can be found from lots of other opinionators.
Constance Reader
He’s not wrong, and anyone who says he is wrong is delusional or too weak to face the reality. How many people thought Leninism/Stalinism would quickly burn out and we’d get back to normal? Or the Nazis? Just let the Chinese communists get it out of their system, they won’t last long. There are still fanatics who truly believe that the Bourbons will return to power in France and the Holzhollerns in Germany. The rapture lunatics are not going to just get over it. This is the reality we live in, it’s not just “a phase”.
different-church-lady
The biggest mistake Atkins is making is conflating governing with campaigning. Of course Democrats are governing that way — it’s the only responsible way to govern. How they go about campaigning or politicing is a completely different matter.
Constance Reader
@lowtechcyclist: Indeed.
Josie
So much of this is fantasy until we have the votes in congress to do what we need. The most important thing at this point is getting people registered to vote and educating them on the stakes. We must fight against voter suppression and push for fair elections. Other good things will follow. If people don’t vote, nothing else will work. Look for people and organizations that are doing this work and support them in any way we can.
different-church-lady
@Hob:
What? And ruin his business model?
Constance Reader
@Miss Bianca: yes, but those of us who realize this about the GOP are not in any position to do anything about it, that’s the point. The ones in power to do something won’t do anything.
different-church-lady
@Jeffro:
“And so, Johnny, that’s how the Supreme Court wound up with 938 justices.”
Constance Reader
@Omnes Omnibus: Even after the Civil War…
Yeah, how’d that whole Reconstruction thing work out?
Even after WWII…
You mean when FDR upended the entire socioeconomic order with the New Deal, that “after WWII”?
different-church-lady
@Baud:
Succinct.
Omnes Omnibus
@Constance Reader: Again, who are these people who believe that this is a phase on the right? The Manchin/Sinema axis and a few hangers on? They aren’t going to change. What we need is to overwhelm them with numbers. How? By winning elections. If we do that, all the other things become possible.
Gvg
We don’t have enough votes to do those things legally so we law abiding party people do what we can. There are a few elected democrats who don’t see enough danger and you could call them moderates i guess but there aren’t that many. We don’t even have a majority in the house, so how are we going to do any of those major actions?
Screaming louder might help in some cases but could hurt in others. We have to keep winning more and more elections while exposing Republicans to more voters and protect all we can. Protecting more makes it harder for people to see how dangerous the Republicans have become.
So pundit is just indulging in frustration venting because his nerves are stretched. Mine too. He is still wrong though, and undercutting support for only possible choice we have for success.
VOR
I agree with the approach of Trump as symptom rather than cause. The GOP base was ripe for an authoritarian and TFG was happy to oblige. TFG didn’t create the racism, sexism, or xenophobia. In my view, he unleashed the pent-up desire by showing the base it was possible to stop using dog whistles and still enjoy electoral success.
The danger would not end if lightning struck TFG tomorrow. DeSantis or someone else would simply step into the role. The base wants an authoritarian to encourage their worst selves. The GOP moderates would fall in line, as they always do.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Hob: yeah, that was an instant eye-roll, conflating “adding states” with “ditching blue slips” is just the most blatant instance of Atkins not being serious people
JPL
@Josie: Until that day comes, it’s important to define them and their goals. DeSantis is a homophobic fascist, and if power were handed to him at the Federal level, we’d look like FL. Many adults who are trans are no longer receive proper medical care.
Another Scott
@different-church-lady: + Eleventy Billion.
They’re different things.
“Something something campaign in poetry, govern in prose.”
Presumably Manchin is one of his “moderate Democrats”. Being a Democrat in a R+30 state means that he isn’t going to be for Big Structural Change. He just isn’t.
The way to get Big Structural Change, and defeat the fascists, is to elect more Democrats and keep them in office for many cycles and let incremental change happen.
Cheers,
Scott.
Miss Bianca
@Constance Reader:
Oh, please.
@Omnes Omnibus: Yeah, thanks for saying this so I didn’t have to.
piratedan
as for the observations from Captain Obvious (Adams) how does he propose to alert the nation at large when:
different-church-lady
@Another Scott:
What, you don’t know about the “Some Democrats” caucus?
Nobody knows who’s in the caucus, but they get quoted a lot.
Omnes Omnibus
@Constance Reader: I said “during” not “after.” During the Civil War, we were planning land grant universities and transcontinental railroads. During WWII, we were working in the idea of the UN and the GI Bill.
Redshift
@oldgold:
He’s saying they’re pursuing a literal fascist coup, so the one problem I don’t see with his screed is giving the arsonists a pass.
different-church-lady
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
“Dear Mr. President: there are too few states nowadays. Please add three. I am NOT a crackpot.”
Ksmiami
@Constance Reader: Democrats in power need to be explicit of the dangers the GOP represents. Everyday, repeatedly, loudly. And never let up. MAGA is unAmerican and it’s infected the Republican Party at all levels.
brantl
He’s right in that democrats aren’t speaking as though this is the problem. We all need to start talking as though these sons-of-bitches are trying to subvert democracy, because THEY FUCKING ARE. we need to point out all the individual instances of fascism, AS THEY OCCUR. We’re going to have to harp on this, and PROVE IT, over and over and over again, and beat them like a rented mule
We need to bang on this in the state houses too. We need to put Democrats speaking out on this onto Tik Tok and Twitter and every other kind of soial media there is.
different-church-lady
@piratedan:
Murc’s law.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@different-church-lady: I figured he was talking about statehood for Puerto Rico and DC. That’s not entirely crazy. Just unlikely.
m.j,
Why isn’t Puerto Rico a State?
smith
It is true that moderate Dems are protecting maddening Senate rules like the blue slips and filibuster, but they aren’t being preserved so we’ll have them to use on the glorious day arrives when American fascism is defeated once and for all. They are kept in place so that our side will have them available to gum up the works if the Rs retake the Senate. Of course, this is a gamble, because the Rs in that case would have the power to just abolish them. The assumption is they won’t do that entirely (though the filibuster may continue to be chipped away) because they will be applying the same calculus, anticipating the day when they themselves lose the Senate again.
All bets are off, of course, if Senate Rs try to pull a Trump and refuse to recognize their defeat in a future election. I guess the writer thinks that is likely to happen (?)
PaulB
I don’t think we need to go as far as he does with his rhetoric, and I’m not sure that his rhetoric is all that helpful. I don’t need the excuse of impending fascism to want to see the following changes:
1. Expansion of the Supreme Court: the number of districts has expanded, let’s expand the court accordingly.
2. Expansion of the House of Representatives: As matters stand now, an individual in Wyoming has a much greater say than does an individual from California. For basic fairness, for “one person, one vote,” let’s expand the House.
3. Expansion of the Senate: Again, basic fairness says that Puerto Rico and D.C. deserve representation.
4. Senate rules: The rules of the Senate are anti-democratic and it’s ridiculous that it takes 60 votes to accomplish anything, that one individual can gum up the works for day or even weeks. Get rid of the filibuster, get rid of blue slips, get rid of the ability of a single Senator to throw a wrench into the works.
5. Voting rights: For consistency, fairness, and equal opportunity for the fundamental right to vote, pass all of the various voting reforms that have been discussed here and elsewhere.
All of these changes can be justified in the name of basic fairness. That they would also help ward off fascism is an added perk.
[Edited to add that all of this is a pipe dream, of course. Even if you could convince people like Sinema and Manchin, you still need to operate under the rules as they currently are, which means we’d need super-majorities in the House and the Senate, as well as retaining the Presidency.]
Frankensteinbeck
The elected Democrats who Atkins describes are a small fringe of our hardest right, people like Manchin. Using the phrase ‘moderate Democrats’ and then launching into a rant makes it sound like he means the mainstream party, which does not fit his description. He is either being deceptive or delusional, and I am very, very sick of Leftists who think that Manchin and Sinema are the definition of a standard elected Democrat.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I see a lot of people on the internet say things like “We’re two votes away from eliminating the filibuster!” King and Coons, as I recall, were on board for a limited carve-out for voting rights, and I’m guessing there were a few others in that boat. I know others supported a carve out for abortion rights, I don’t know about those two, would Bob Casey vote for that? Feinstein (all other issues aside) has a bad case of Senate-brain.
Claire McCaskill, who actually knows most of these people, said there weren’t 40 D votes for full elimination, much less 50
different-church-lady
@PaulB:
Yes, I’m sure we can accomplish all of that in the next 18 months.*
(*Posted before you added your postscript)
Miss Bianca
@brantl: I seem to recall that Sleepy Ol’ Joe Biden campaigned using exactly the rhetoric you’re calling for. Can’t recall whether or not he actually won the election.//
Well, doesn’t matter anyway, as I’m informed he’s Old and therefore can’t possibly be the
leader‘droid we’re looking for.Baud
@Shane in SLC:
In the quoted piece, he quickly loses the “moderate” qualifier.
Omnes Omnibus
@Miss Bianca: Judge Janet may have said similar things in WI this year. I wonder how she did.
Baud
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I stopped caring about Atkins years ago when he lied about Obamacare.
RandomMonster
Atkins makes categorical mistakes by suggesting that Democrats either don’t recognize the danger of fascism or don’t have the courage to confront it out of some misbegotten allegiance to normalcy. It’s telling that he doesn’t offer a practical roadmap for even one of the BIG STRUCTURAL CHANGES he scolds us for not achieving.
Jackie
@Josie: Exactly.
E.
@Hob: Maybe he means Dems should campaign harder on these issues. I would love to hear them explaining how statehood is an issue of simple justice for millions of Americans.
different-church-lady
“Do all these magical things or you’re just idiots whistling past the graveyard /1”
There, cut that down to size for you.
kindness
What is this ‘Democrats are terrified’ bullshit? That might make a compelling meme or headline but what reality is it based on? None other than the MSM’s & Elite Village Elders conventional beliefs. Neither of which are what Democrats are thinking.
Our own people shoot us in the feet far too often just so they can be clickbait for a few moments.
Mr. Bemused Senior
Indeed. I wrote here once before, the Republicans are serious about taking power any way they can. The coup attempt in 2020 had its comical aspects, but the people surrounding Trump were dead serious. John Eastman is still at it, and he is not alone.
I attended a fund raiser for Adam Schiff. It is such a pleasure to listen to a sane person who responds intelligently and thoughtfully to questions. It is obvious he has thought deeply about specific issues as well as the precarious political situation we now occupy. He brought up ending the Senate filibuster and the idea of expanding the the Supreme Court.
He touched on the death threats he and his family have received. I am in awe of his willingness to face this. Thinking about it afterward, it occurs to me that the tactics the Republicans have pursued for more than 30 years, stoking hatred, deeming liberals “the enemy,” and now casting doubt on the validity of elections, have harmed our national security. It makes us vulnerable. It has given the Russians the opening to damage us. They are diligently pursuing it. We are under constant attack.
I’m no political consultant. I don’t know whether it’s feasible to highlight this as a political issue. To me personally, it’s clear.
different-church-lady
The only thing that can stop a bad party with a reactionary goals is a good party with reactionary goals.
Omnes Omnibus
@RandomMonster: Most of his proposals are things that we should be working toward adopting/enacting. Most of us already know that.
m.j.
Why isn’t Puerto Rico a State with the associated status and powers?
brantl
@smith: The bullshit Senate rules were written just pre-Civil War, and were meant to protect slavery, and they’ve worked very well at protecting antiquated behavior and laws. It’s time for majority rule, no gerrymandering, and the person who wins the popular vote wins the presidency.
eversor
Our system of government has failed and we are in a cold religious civil war that is slowy turning hot. Voting won’t fix this. In the end we are getting an authoritarian government and someones religion, culture, and ideology is getting banned by the force of law. The question is who’s.
Anyone who does not admit and realize this is effectively out of the fight. And since more of the right than the left realizes this not only will they win, effectively they deserve to win because we are too chicken shit to face up to reality.
@Constance Reader:
That New Deal lasted as long as we were a White Christian mono culture. The shattering of whiteness fractured it, the shattering of Christian demanded patriarchy/heirarchy/gender/sex rules effective kicked off the second civil war. So there is no way out of this other than one side of our religious war winning and effectively culturally removing the other side by law.
This is a fight the right is eager to have, and is going to win. And it’s going to win because our side is full of people who are not willing to realize the cross and the bible in the room and pretends that a totally fake hippy version of Christianity exists without all the nasty shit even from Christ himself and that it can be kept without dooming us all.
We are getting no Christianity by law or a theocracy. Choose!
Omnes Omnibus
@m.j.: They get some choice in the matter and haven’t been particularly eager for it.
different-church-lady
What happens when we make Puerto Rico a state and they vote for Donald Trump, Jr.?
Baud
@different-church-lady:
We blame Democrats!
artem1s
uh, duh, this is exactly why Biden was nominated and is so successful at his job. Actual little d Dems are determined to demonstrate that governing is not only their job, but their duty and it’s possible even when the opposition is batshit crazy.
sounds a lot like Bern it all down to me (IOW, bullshit). I’m surprise he restrained himself and didn’t demand Biden dump Harris or step down altogether.
I.E. Only Dems have agency and they need to bow to the demands of the ‘DO SOMETHING” Twits and bend the knee and use that “one weird trick” to magically eradicate the fascist for all time. Not going to happen. WWII, the Civil War, and the whole breakup of Jim Crow south – remember those BIG STRUCTURAL CHANGES? Also, exactly how are all these BIG CHANGES supposed to happen without doing the ‘stupid’ thing and win elections? All this sounds like an awful lot like those who think bypassing norms and using the authoritarian means to win justifies their actions – because we’ll totally go back to being the good guys once we win!
different-church-lady
@eversor:
Well then certainly not voting will!
Omnes Omnibus
I categorically reject this. That’s like saying our choices in the 1930s were Stalin or Hitler. Manifestly not true then. Not true now.
Another Scott
@Omnes Omnibus: The latest referendum passed pretty handily. Some commission was then setup to look at the details, is my recollection.
Of course, DC Statehood has been an issue with bills introduced for the last few decades. There was a brief time when it seemed like there was progress in it (by simultaneously giving Utah an extra “at large” seat until the next census (which sounded unconstitutional to me (one person one vote – why should a person in Utah have 2 representatives representing them??)), but of course it didn’t happen.
The reason, as always, why something didn’t happen was because there weren’t enough votes to make it happen. As we know. Well, maybe except for maybe DOA… :-/
Cheers,
Scott.
JaneE
I suspect he is more right than not. Democrats do not think like Republicans. We do not subscribe to “kill them all and let God sort them out”. We do not want to go bloodthirsty maniacs to fight bloodthirsty maniacs, but that may be what this takes to survive before it is over. If we do get to that point the country is already lost.
brantl
He’s right in that the Senate needs to be majority rule, period. All of the bullshit rules of Senate holds needs to be removed, greater than 51% to pass something is bullshit and greater than 51% is bullshit to call for an end to debate.
He’s right, they’re going by streetfighting rules, and we’re doing the Marquee de Queensbury.
Miss Bianca
@eversor: Oh, Christ, it’s this asshole again.
japa21
@Miss Bianca: The irony is that when he isn’t on his wacko anti-Christianity rants, he (assuming he) has some very interesting things to say. That is the only reason I haven’t pied him.
Brachiator
I get so fucking tired of some supposedly enlightened leftist cadre continually blaming the center -left, whoever this might be, for failing hard enough to bring about progressive Utopia.
I agree that Trump and DeSantis and the GOP pose danger to democracy. But I don’t know that the solution is as simple as some want to believe. Nor do I think that the majority of Democrats are blind to the problems and challenges.
Kay
@piratedan:
I genuinely don’t know what this means. If he started with “the Republican Party has agency and should do the following..” would that somehow preclude any analysis of what Democrats do?
If Democrats can’t say what Democrats should do then surely it’s even more futile for Democrats to say what Republicans should do.
JoyceH
@Omnes Omnibus:
In a non-binding plebiscite in 2020, 52.3% voted in favor of statehood. There’s a push for a binding plebiscite in 2025.
Miss Bianca
@japa21: IKR? Every once in a while the creature says something that sounds so much like a thoughtful human being instead of a blood-gargling psychopath that I find myself almost in charity with him (assuming “him”). Alas for my lacerated sensibilities, after the occasional burst of rationality he reverts to type with a depressing swiftness.
Kay
@piratedan:
I mean, in a way you’re making his point for him. He’s saying Republicans won’t do anything. Insisting that Republicans “have agency” implies if we just criticize them properly they will moderate and improve. His point is forget that- it doesn’t matter if they have agency- they’re not doing shit. They’re not going to help Democrats. Not ever.
Omnes Omnibus
@Kay: Because people don’t like being blamed for a problem they did not create and opinion pieces like this can often come across this way.
Cacti
The sentiment is spot on and has been seen over the past 29 months of Merrick Garland not charging any of the Rs who incited the 1/21 putsch.
Or the Obama appointed Judge who showed his belly to Ron Desantis and recused himself because his 8th cousin twice removed owned 3 shares of Disney stock.
Kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Oh, they have agency all right. They use that agency every year to get more and more radical. They’re definitely responsible for it so we can feel good about that when it goes sideways- it was NOT our fault.
Not that it changes anything.
CaseyL
I see the screed as another version of Leftier-than-Thou’s contempt for democracy in general because it doesn’t give the results they want when they want them.
I also think they don’t disapprove of GOP methods, just the policies those methods are advancing. They’d be very happy if Biden, Schumer, and Jeffries governed the way Trump, McConnell, and McCarthy govern: by fiat. By undermining democracy, silencing dissent, and bulldozing opposition. But, y’know, for noble causes.
Omnes Omnibus
@Kay:
Not what I was saying. Nor, do I think, it was what anyone else was saying. It’s an emotional response. People can have those. Then they often get down to trying to solve the problem – even if they didn’t create it.
Cacti
@Kay: We just need to wait a few more years for Garland to finish organizing his sock drawer. Now let me bloviate about how this relates to the rule against perpetuities that I just read about in Harvard Law Review.
-Omnes
Miss Bianca
@Cacti: Shorter Cacti: “Finally, an idiot who says all the same idiotish things that I do! That’ll show YOU libtards! And your little
dogMerrick Garland too!”Miss Bianca
@CaseyL:
Bingo.
gene108
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
I think by not specifying the number he wants more than two states added. Maybe make each Hawaiian island its own state? Cut some states in half, so there’s a North Illinois and South Illinois. Or give the reactionaries in the far north of California and the southern parts of Oregon their own state of Jefferson.
Two new states will hardly be the transformation of the structural balance of power he wants to see.
Cacti
It’s especially funny that WaterGirl posted this when she gets her knickers in a bunch every time that I correctly point out Merrick Garland is sitting around with his thumb up his arse and prosecuting only the peons.
Cacti
@Miss Bianca: Put the car keys down and go have a nap, grandma. The lucid people are talking.
Aussie Sheila
@Josie:
Thank you.
To quote Jane McAlevey, ‘there are no shortcuts’.
In a democracy you have to organise to persuade, not just make preachy speeches. I know the US system is badly tilted towards minoritarian rule with absurd Senate rules designed to make it even worse.
That’s bad. But it is what it is.
Biden and Harris and the whole administration appear to be working their butts off to deliver. They can only deliver what the electorate clearly give them the power to do.
I have greater faith in the ability of ordinary people rising to the occasion than I do in politicians doing the right thing, because it is democratic politics that permits people to act purposively and put their values into action.
I also believe ordinary people in the US won’t let their democracy be stolen, even if it has taken a while for most people to understand the threat.
Atkins writes as though no one has ever thought of those things.
His screed is designed to demoralise and overwhelm people with the magnitude of the task.
Organise people to vote, and mobilise them act in their own interests.
It works.
PaulB
That doesn’t include you, Cacti. Go troll somewhere else. Your shtick is getting old.
Cacti
@Omnes Omnibus: You do know we ended up siding with Stalin, right?
japa21
@Cacti: Then why do you interrupt them?
m.j.
@Omnes Omnibus:
Really? Who says?
I’d rather have some grotesque comb-over monstrosity throw rolls pf paper towels at me.
NobodySpecial
This is inarguably the most progressive Democratic caucus since forever, and it’s been done while pulling in left leaning and moderate Republicans fleeing the GQP, and people still complain they’re not doing enough.
This lifting shit is hard. It took the handful of billionaires running the Nutbag Party 40 years and untold billions to build the infrastructure of the minority party they own into something that repeatedly fumbles the bag and can’t do much even when they have near total control of the levers of power. This guy wants Democrats to replicate that lift in four years? GTFOH.
Josie
@Cacti:
So, this is you claiming to be lucid? It is to laugh.
Anotherlurker
@Cacti: do you have to work at being a jerk or does it come naturally to you?
japa21
My overall view on this, in a little more depth than my previous :”this is all crap” comment.
1. The American people want bipartisanship (talking the bulk, not the politically aware).
2. To win elections you have to win over number 1.
3. You won’t do number 2 if you lump everybody who votes Republican as authoritarian fascists.
4. The authoritarian fascists in the GOP (including the voters) hold power way outside their actual numbers in the party.
5. There is a reason Biden and others talk about the MAGA Republicans. They are avoiding number 3.
6. Talking about MAGA Republicans is not talking about Trump. There is a reason Biden almost never mentions his name.
7. Although a few idiots in the Dem party may think that once Trump is out of the picture everything will return to normal, the leadership, Biden included, are not in that group.
8. There are Republicans in Congress who would probably love to see a return to normalcy. Not a lot but there are some. Alienating those few would not be good. Liz Cheney is not someone I agree with politically, but she is not a fascist.
9. All those things that Adkins would like to see accomplished means the Dems need to win big. They can’t do that by screaming the sky is falling 24/7. Yes the threat is real, yes Dems are telling Americans the threat is real, but you can’t tell every Republican leaning voter that they are part of the threat.
NotMax
Not much. 2 a.m. sophomore year in college yattering when the beer and pot run out.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Open thread? This is funny, suggests the old school opening credits to a sitcom
Cacti
I admire your optimism but don’t share it. In the past 50 years, ordinary Americans have given the White House to Nixon, Reagan, Dubya, Trump and the legislature to Newt Gingrich.
Geminid
@CaseyL: David Atkins can get lost.
This March, when Nevada Assemblywoman Danille Munroe Moreno and her Unity ticket ousted Judith Whitmer from the state Democrat Chairmanship, Democrats nationwide were relieved. Whitmer’s incompetence had cost Governor Sisolak his reelection, and nearly cost Senator Cortez-Masto hers.
Atkins thanked Whitmer and then complained:
Ms. Munroe Moreno was backed by the Nevada AFL-CIO, the Las Vegas Culinary Union local, plus the state’s 3 Democratic Representatives and 2 Democratic Senators. But Atkins would have the uninformed and the credulous believe that this was a matter of favoring certain political consultants (Atkins is a political consultant).
Classic pirate tactics: when they can’t hold on to the town, they poison the wells on the way back to their ship.
Baud
@Geminid: 1/5 is a strangely specific number.
Kay
@Aussie Sheila:
I think there’s some frustration with what is perceived as a lack of acknowleging what has already been lost- the Voting Rights Act, womens bodily autonomy, a big chunk of the Clean Water Act.
These are big losses. We don’t have to dwell on or in them but we do have to admit they occurred, for me anyway. I’m not comfortable not doing so- it’s not realistic.
Geminid
@Baud: Atkins was speaking figuratively, but he was wrong. Nevada Democrats worked their butts off to elect 3 Representatives and Senator Cortez-Masto, and they succeeded despite Whitmer’s lousy management. They were right to replace Whitmer, and Atkins was just being a sore loser.
les
@Hob: I guess you missed discussions on DC and Puerto Rico. FFS. Dude may be a jerk, but I think he’s largely right. Add 4 to 100, and maybe 25% of the population doesn’t automatically get a Senate majority-or a dem majority isn’t hostage to Sinemanchin. Fuck yes expand the court-at least match the number of circuits. Fuck yes blow up the filibuster and blue slips-always and forever used by the racists who started them. Anybody remember what the population was last time the House was expanded?
I have the sole Dem rep from KS; and I can’t even read her communications any more ‘cuz every time I see “bipartisan,” I gotta quit. Love her, she’s a fine lady and a good rep, and I hope she’s just doin’ what she has to to stay there. But when one party platform is “we gotta destroy the other guys,” maybe hoping they really just want to get along is idiocy.
les
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: conflating “adding states” with “ditching blue slips” is just the most blatant instance of Atkins not being serious people
Mentioning 2 separate actions does not a conflation make. There are 2 states hangin’ out there, waiting for dems to pull their heads out of their asses. And what the ever loving fuck is sacred about blue slips?
Miss Bianca
@Cacti: No, YOU’RE talking. Your apparent belief that you could, in any way, shape, or form, count yourself as one of the “lucid people” is so delusional that it would almost be poignant if you weren’t such a foul little guttersnipe.
les
@Frankensteinbeck: The elected Democrats who Atkins describes are a small fringe of our hardest right, people like Manchin.
Manchin ain’t on the Judiciary committee, which is doggedly (perhaps Blue Doggedly) honoring blue slips. Manchin DGAF and Sinema’s just weird, and they’re lovely cover for a strong core of “preserve the world’s greatest deliberative body” Dems. Christ on a pogo stick. Place largely sounds like Cole 25 years ago.
Jinchi
He lost me right at the start with his “biggest mistake moderate Democrats are making is…” pitch. He oversimplifies the current state of the Democratic party and hedges by adding the “moderate” qualifier, since he’s aware that there are many in the party, especially the newer electeds, who see these problems quite clearly.
His points on elections, gun laws and the corruption of the Supreme Court are already being debated widely. But for two Senators, many of these changes would already have occured. Those two know exactly what they’re doing and they aren’t so much “moderate Democrats” as they are Democrats of convenience.
I think the party has come a long way since the Obama years, when they did appear to be to credulous of attempts to reach across the aisle. Once they elected TFG, and defended every one of his reprehensible actions it became impossible to believe that legitimate compromises could be reached with the Republican party on any major issue.
Miss Bianca
@Kay:
It’s maybe possible that Democrats aren’t acknowledging these things in Ohio, I dunno – you’d know about that better than I would. But they’re sure as shit acknowledging them here in Colorado. We’ve been busy passing reproductive rights legislation, trans healthcare legislation, gun control legislation here, as well as speaking up on climate change and the Clean Water Act gutting – specifically calling out those very things you mention while doing so. Our Dems have had their hair on fire about these things.
And, judging from the tone of all the beseeching fundraising emails I’m getting, seems like a lot of others in other places are acknowledging it as well.
Geminid
I expect Sharice Davids understands the character of the Republican Party as well as you do, maybe even better. But Democrats representing purple districts usually talk a lot about bipartisanship, because many voters like to hear it.
The mailers you don’t like reading aren’t just sent to Democrats. I guess that instead of waving to the Republicans, Davids could thumb them in the eye. But Independents read her mailers too, and they gobble that bipartisanship stuff right up. And like it or not, Davids can’t win that district without support from Independent voters. Democrats alone are not enough.
Kay
@Miss Bianca:
I think the “elect more Democrats” solution runs aground on these things we have lost because we will not get them back- there will never again be a strong Clean Water Act or probably federal legislation protecting womens bodily autonomy and agency – just the VRA is a huge stretch, really, and of those three that would be the easiest.
You can’t just get these things back.
Matt McIrvin
The thing about this talk about “moderate Democrats don’t understand we’re in a war” is that in 2016, it was the left wing of American progressivism telling me Trump wasn’t a big problem, it was stupid to worry about the Supreme Court, and Hillary Clinton and the DNC were the real menace. So I have a problem swallowing a lot of this.
NotMax
@les
Banking on Puerto Rico being a lock for Dems is a foolish assumption. (Not saying you take that tack, referring to the discussion in general.)
Although the major local parties in Puerto Rico are not directly comparable A to Z to the major parties on the mainland, the territory’s current member of the House (non-voting on floor votes) caucuses with Republicans (and although technically elected under the banner of Puerto Rico’s New Progressive Party, served as chairwoman of the Puerto Rican branch of the U.S. Republican party as well).
Trivia: Puerto Rico’s is the only member of the House to serve terms of four years, the position being designated not delegate but rather resident commissioner.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Matt McIrvin: and in 2000, people sound a lot like Atkins and in many cases the same ones you describe in 2016 (Sarandon and Moore, just to pick the household names) told us there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Bush and Gore because, as I recall, Gore’s mother owned stock in Occidental Petroleum and his wife was a bit of a prig. It was Bush judges who gutted the VRA, and if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired in May of 2014, Roberts would still have a 5-4 majority
Matt McIrvin
@NotMax: Also, what little I know of Puerto Rican politics suggests that if mainland Democrats just treat them as reliable Democratic votes they can use as a political pawn for their own mainland-politics purposes, Puerto Ricans will not be happy or compliant about this at all, and there will probably be a price. Their policy preferences may lean more toward Democratic than Republican priorities, but this is not what party politics in Puerto Rico is really about.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Kay:
How do you know that?
les
@Geminid: Dude, I get it; she does good work and I’m totally for her. As I said, hopefully she’s just doing what she has to. Biden, not to my shock, is pretty solid-as much as he can be. But there’s also a large chunk in the house solidly seen with the 3rd way, no labels bullshit. Pelosi’s great, Jeffries might be. There’s a chunk of the house making good noises while supporting what can actually get done-fine.
But: the senate is fucked-a short handful speaking out, but a majority maintaining anti-democratic practices for “comity,” which the repubs would dump in a hot second. You don’t politely ask the most corrupt Supreme Court in memory to politely clean themselves up; you tell everyone who will listen that it’s fucked and needs changing. Is the Democratic Party writ large doing that?
Where’s the national party? Why isn’t the constant message “these assholes want you to do what they say or die?” Some states-Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado-sorta, but…I don’t give a fuck who Adkins is, that list should be pushed by every Dem org out there, and finding and presenting candidates who do too.
Obfuckingviously we need to win elections. So we need to wake up the 1/2 of the fucking country that can’t be bothered to vote, ‘cuz “look, bipartisans, all the same, blah fucking blah.” There’s no goddam excuse for whining that voters don’t get the serious problem if you’re not screaming it from the rooftops.
Kay
@Miss Bianca:
The country that passed the Clean Water Act and the Voting Rights Act doesn’t exist any more – it’s been gone for at least 13 years – and it isn’t coming back. Colorado can pass some water protections and voter protections but there won’t be any more alliances with Republicans on national voting rights or clean water regs, and to have “enough” Democrats – 60 + 2 or 3 spares in the senate- is nearly impossible under the current scheme.
Miss Bianca
@Kay: Wow. And I thought I was a pessimist. What’s the point of saying, “You can’t just get these things back”? What’s the basis for that assertion? Laws and regulations are always written in someone’s blood, either literal or metaphorical or both. It’s unfortunate that that’s what it’s going to take to get laws and regulations back to strength, but it’s going to happen – because it’s already happening.
It’s possible – nay, probable – that I won’t live to see the turnaround, but honestly – I don’t think I could go on working for change or hell, even *voting* if I were in despair that it was never going to happen.
@Matt McIrvin: EXACTLY.
les
@NotMax: I don’t think PR is a Dem lock; nor do I think it’s likely they’re screaming MAGATs either. The point is a knee-jerk “more states, what an idiot” is fucking stupid. Add ’em; you’re not gettin’ Mississippi, at least got a chance w/PR. Or maybe you get a couple of not-completely-crazy R’s. Whatever. Fucking make a change that needs to be made.
Geminid
@les: I disagree about the number of Democrats in the House who favor the centrist, “No Labels” bullshit. 75% of House Democrats are to the left of Sharice Davids, and most of the rest are like her.
karen marie
Fact not in evidence.
From where I sit, DeSantis is creating quite a lot of chaos in Florida. Much of it is simply not reported by the press, and when it is, it’s not linked to DeSantis or the Republican legislature.
This article is a good example. While there’s a complaint about lack of regulation in the home insurance industry together with changes in regulations that worsen the problems, neither “DeSantis” nor “Republican” appear anywhere in it.
Omnes Omnibus
@les: Most of the commenters on this thread seem to broadly agree with many of Adkins’s policy proposals. The disagreement is with the idea that the Democratic Party is not already aware of the problems and working on many of the solutions suggested. And also with the implication that if Dems really wanted them these things would already be happening. Pure Green Lanternism, IMO.
Matt McIrvin
@les: The thing is, anything you do can’t just be perceived as hardball or the backlash will get you. I think Democrats have less leeway over this than Republicans do because people don’t expect gangster behavior from us.
In principle, with a presidential-congressional trifecta, we could do the thing I keep worrying about the Republicans doing: divide some loyal blue area into 500 tiny states and basically do a procedural coup, but it’d probably start a shooting war.
mere mortal
This is the same old superhero story.
The superhero has to win, every single time.
The villain only has to win once.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Chris Hayes, whose politics are probably closer to Atkins than most people here, even if he’s too smart to go as far as Atkins in his Green Lanterns, admitted the other night that even though Biden’s bipartisan rhetoric doesn’t appeal to him, it’s proved pretty effective in the Dem primary, the general election, and several significant legislative negotiations
then he went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid like, “joining us now is Senator Bernie Sanders…..”
different-church-lady
@japa21:
Oh, it’s always ‘interesting.’
different-church-lady
@Brachiator:
“The heads. You’re looking at the heads. Sometimes they go too far. But… they’re the first ones to admit it. “
different-church-lady
@Miss Bianca:
This is a person who long ago lost the distinction between having opinions and being right.
O. Felix Culpa
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
The Chris Hayes who went all-in for (i.e., promoted) Tara Reade’s bogus claims against Biden, that “too smart” Chris Hayes? Granted, he’s not going to win the dim bulb contest against Tuckems, but then who would?
different-church-lady
@Miss Bianca:
I sense some friction here.
different-church-lady
@gene108:
States! Just states! More of them! The number doesn’t matter!
different-church-lady
@Cacti:
Oh, yeah, definitely some friction here.
les
@Omnes Omnibus: Maybe-I’m pretty pessimistic, and I read the majority as running between “he’s a dick, can’t be saying anything real” and “oh fuck that’s all impossible dreaming.” Are “most dems” aware and working on it? I pay more attention than is good for me, and I don’t see it. The Senate is not only not visibly working on it, it’s mostly preserving status quo, ‘cuz “comity” and “preserve the standards,” etc. We’re stuck w/a 2 party system, and 1 party is bug fuck nuts, in thrall to a bigoted violent minority. The notion that we don’t have to say out loud and constantly that big things have to change is…to lose those things.
different-church-lady
@Aussie Sheila:
A common symptom of professional-thought-haver disease is losing the ability to recognize that other people have thoughts.
Citizen Alan
@Constance Reader: “How’d Reconstruction turn out?” Well, its failures were baked in once Lincoln was replaced by a Southern Democrat who wanted to protect the former (white) Confederates from any changes to their depraved society. An interesting “what if?” to me is not “What if Lincoln had not been assassinated?” but rather “What if Johnson had been impeached?” His replacement would have been Benjamin Wade, a staunch Radical Republican and supporter of civil rights who, in the real world, was livid about President Hayes’ decision to withdraw federal troops from the former Confederate States and the end of Reconstruction. He was also a supporter of black and women’s suffrage in 1867!
Aussie Sheila
@Kay:
I understand your frustration. The gutting of the VRA and the loss of women’s rights to reproductive freedom are both terrible things. Really bad in every way.
I am not Pollyannish in any way, but I do believe that sometimes it has to be rubbed in peoples faces before they actually are moved to do anything. And then they have to be organised. People can’t act effectively politically as ‘individuals’, and most people don’t take any notice of politics unless it hits them on the upside of the face. I know you know this, but the Atkins ‘take’ irritates me because it is so typical of people who have never had to organise irl, and who think once everyone knows the problem there will be a solution everyone will get behind. It is also designed to demoralise, imo.
I am confident in (most) elected democrats and in the management of the Presidency as well as Biden and Harris. The rest is up to the activist and organising layers of the Dem party to push stuff hard on the ground.
Again, I know you know this, but I am just so sick of the ‘one magic trick’ idiots that think everything can be done in a year or two.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@les:
Apropos of nothing, aren’t you the guy that unironically used “SJW” in a thread a few weeks back when the topic of atheists like Dawkins getting chummy with the right came up? If I’m wrong, I apologize in advance
O. Felix Culpa
@Aussie Sheila:
All true. Especially your last sentence.
Citizen Alan
@PaulB:
The problem is that, to a bigot, “basic fairness” is another word for bigotry against the bigot. To the bigot, “basic fairness” is per se unfair to them, because equality means a loss of privilege.
different-church-lady
@Matt McIrvin: Jesus fuckin’ Christ THAT!
Miss Bianca
@Aussie Sheila: Just out of curiosity: in your experience what *were* the most mobilizing techniques when it came to organizing?
karen marie
@O. Felix Culpa:
This gives way too much credit and forethought to the author who isn’t thinking past “how many clicks can I get.”
les
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): Apology accepted. Fuck me to tears.
different-church-lady
“There is no one weird trick that beats back the appeal of GOP fascism. Instead, here’s fifteen weird tricks.”
Kay
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):
Well, I don’t KNOW know that but really I do know- because I can count and I can look at the remaining states with R Senators. That’s why Atkins is saying we need structural changes. I’m not a big fan of his but his basic point seems so obviously true I don’t even think there’s much to debate.
You won’t see another Clean Water Act under the current scheme because not a single modern Republican would ever vote for it and you’ll have to pull some rabbits out of hats to have enough Democrats. You may see another Cuyahoga fire, however.
different-church-lady
@Omnes Omnibus:
That.
Citizen Alan
@japa21: I don’t even need to pie Eversor. I can recognize an Eversor post by the Christian eliminationism usually found in the first sentence and I just scroll past. I honestly don’t recall anything he’s ever posted that wasn’t based on his anti-Christianity in all forms obsession.
different-church-lady
@Matt McIrvin:
The dirtbag left does.
Citizen Alan
@CaseyL: Well, said! My disdain for the Bernie Bro/Cosplay Marxist crowd is that they are the mirror of the MAGA crowd. Both groups want America to become a dictatorship. They just disagree on what they want Big Brother to do once he takes over.
Another Scott
@Kay: In 2000 it would have been “nearly impossible” for a Black man to be elected President.
Just sayin’.
Cheers,
Scott.
Kay
@Another Scott:
Lets just try not to lose the rest of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species act. All losses are not of the same magnitude and some errors or blunders or bad breaks can’t be fixed.
Miss Bianca
@Kay:
Well, I think you definitely have a point there.
I wouldn’t bet against it. And *that’s* what it’s going to take, unfortunately, to turn the ship back around again. Which is why I talked about “regulations being written in blood” – or fire. How many Republicans cared about voting over environmental concerns before events like that were all over the news in the late 60s or 70s, anyway?
Other than Theodore Roosevelt, who was an anomaly, as far as I’m concerned.//
I mean, I would like to THINK, that having once passed strong laws or regulations guaranteeing basic rights or basic health or safety for everyone that everyone, regardless of political leanings, would see the value in keeping them or even strengthening them. I’d LIKE to think that – it gives me pleasure.
Alas, I have long since given up any hope of proof that the human race breeds for wisdom – not the modern American version of the human race, anyway. And so we have to learn the same bloody lessons over and over and over and over again, with less and less time from an unforgiving universe holding its receipts. There, that’s *my* pessimism talking.
Citizen Alan
@Geminid: When people list “bipartisanship” as being important to them, what they mean is that everyone should agree with their personal opinions and go along with them without having to give up anything in return. Obama offered $10 of cuts to government spending for every $1 of increased taxes, and no one in the GOP would even consider it because a deal being 10-1 in their favor is not a total surrender which is the only kind of “bipartisanship” they care about.
Citizen Alan
@Matt McIrvin: I will never forgive the people who claim to be of the Left but who could not support Hillary. Never. I will hate them from beyond the grave.
Omnes Omnibus
You kids have fun.
Citizen Alan
@Kay: What can “we” do to save those things if there are 5 Justices waiting for the chance to bring back Lochner and destroy the federal government’s regulatory power completely?
Aussie Sheila
@Miss Bianca:
1. Listening to concerns/gripes
2. Drawing people in to offer their solutions
3. Entering into dialogue about solutions keeping in mind people’s beefs as expressed in 1.
4. Being clear about the actions that will and won’t achieve the stated goals and beefs of people.
5. Working with people in action to get the ‘thing’ done.
Above all treating people and their opinions with respect, while not BSing about their goals compared to their current state of organised ability to get things done.
Miss Bianca
@Omnes Omnibus: Very well, Omnes Optimistus.
Geminid
@Citizen Alan: Your example concerned Republicans. Bipartisanship means something different to Independents, and they are often the target audience.
And it means something else to Democratic leaders too. Joe Biden emphasized that the debt deal was “bipartisan.” So did his press secretary. And divided government is a fact, at least until 2025. This administration may not get a lot done between now and then, but what they do get done will take Republican votes.
I think Democrats are clear eyed about the actions needed to counter Republican radicalism. But they do not give up a thing when they use “bipartisan” in their rhetoric, no matter how strung out some partisan Democrats get over that language.
Kay
@Citizen Alan:
Work to keep Democrats in the Senate and really commit to more Democrats state level as a backstop.
Czar Chasm
Did not read the comment thread, so apologies if this has already been said:
Get involved in local politics!
This is where most politicians have their larval stage. This is where we (Full disclosure: I’m currently running for Treasurer in my county) cut our teeth, and learn the fundamentals (basic organization, fundraising, etc).
It’s also where a lot of voters feel they have some skin in the game. Talking about fascism seems less tangible than the property tax rates.
Finally, local politics reveal the power structures that provide access to the state levers of power. One could reach out to the VFW, but don’t sleep on the Rotary Club!
different-church-lady
@Czar Chasm:
I’m not trying to fight, but I really have to observe that’s pretty freakin’ situational.
Aussie Sheila
@Czar Chasm:
This. Exactly.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Kay:
I’m sure it was unimaginable for something like the VRA or the 1964 Civil Rights Act to exist 30-40 years before they were passed and signed into law. And yet eventually they were. Everything is impossible until it’s not
Miss Bianca
@Aussie Sheila: That makes sense, thank’ee.
Ruckus
As an old fart who has been following politics since I was a child, I have seen the political world and the physical world change just a bit. CA was, if not conservative, absolutely far more conservative than it is today. In my lifetime we’ve had a number of rethuglican governors. But we, in more ways than one, got over that. I see a lot of parts of the country where republicans are still in enough numbers to be in control or effectively own the state. But is there anywhere where the percentage of them is increasing? Is there anywhere in the country where they aren’t going or haven’t gone off the deep end of conservatism because they are mostly losing a portion of the population? IOW they are fighting back and to do that they have to go farther right, to more offset the concept of actual democracy. And that has been shown to not be a very good position to be in, getting more and more hard core because they are effectively being out numbered in most growth curves I’ve seen. More and more people really do not seem to like absolute conservative places to live. We will likely always be at least a 2 party system but this country has issues, (like every other country) but a huge portion of those issues revolve around our liberal/conservative politics and it will come to a head at some point, my feeling is sooner than later. How that happens, how it works out/is resolved, if it can be, will for sure be interesting.
Bobby Thomson
Atkins is a chaos agent but he’s not wrong here.
Matt McIrvin
@Bobby Thomson: Seven years ago it was the far left complaining that the center-left was being too alarmist about incipient fascism to scare us into supporting Hillary Clinton. Some of them were downright gloating about how Trump was gonna win and make all the corporate shitlib Democrats sad–I saw it all go down.
So all these complaints about how the Democrats are too institutionalist are pretty rich. I think he’s confusing ideology with partisanship.
KSinMA
@Josie:
This.
Mr. Bemused Senior
@Ruckus:
I have lived in the SF Bay Area for a long time now and I have observed the state GOP’s long slow slide into irrelevance. I feel a certain amount of glee at this, though my mother (also a committed Democrat) would warn that single-party rule is hazardous.
One might think that the CA example would prod the national GOP into finding a way out of the corner they’ve painted themselves into, but no sign so far.
Aussie Sheila
@Matt McIrvin:
Yes. Highly partisan people make effective organisers. Highly ideological people with no self awareness or liking for people, do not. I am both highly partisan and have firm ideological beliefs. That has never stopped me organising in often very hostile environments and making allies of people who don’t share my ideological priors.
I treat organising as meeting people at their level and working with them to bring about the change needed to change their circumstances, not their inner selves or their personal, intimate beliefs.
Geminid
@Bobby Thomson: That makes Atkins all the more plausible a chaos agent. He states some obvious points, but in a way that implicates unnamed “moderate” Democrats as impediments. He’s trying to stir up an intra-party fight.
There is an implicit message: trying to win next year is pointless, if Democrats do not also effect structural changes. But none of the structural changes he urges could even be effected by then.
This has become a common theme among Atkins’ allies. I thought the commenter had it right at #137:
SFAW
I do loves me some “he ain’t sayin’ it right, so his message is WORNG! And he smells funny” responses.
BellyCat
Have not yet read comments yet, but Atkins is not addressing Dems who “get it” or BJ followers. He’s addressing casual Dem voters (quite possibly the majority of Dem voters) and he’s right. 100%.
Applaud his clarity.
Ken_L
Atkins is correct about the need for institutional change, especially in the courts, Congress and the electoral college. But he clearly has no idea how these changes could be achieved. They certainly won’t happen as the result of a nice orderly political process where huge majorities of voters have been convinced by rational argument to force the necessary constitutional and legislative amendments.
Things will get worse before they get better. It will take a crisis like 1861 to get the powerful institutions in America to agree that there must be a constitutional convention to throw out the existing dysfunctional document and write a new one. Many other democratic republics have gone through the same process, some more than once (they’re enjoying their Fifth Republic in France). I don’t pretend to be able to predict the nature of the crisis that could trigger such a convention, but I expect it to arise by mid-century.
SFAW
@BellyCat:
[The anti-Eeyore brigade frantically looks for the “pie” button.]
SFAW
@Ken_L:
For some reason, I don’t think that course of action would have the result(s) most of us would want.
Mike H
I don’t think ‘center left’ Democrats are terrified of expanding the court. I think Democratic senators are terrified of anything that makes their position less important. The Senate is a self- perpetuating nightmare designed from it’s start to kill anything too representative of the electorate’s will.
Paul in KY
@Dorothy A. Winsor: The crazy thing is thinking it can happen now or in immediate future with Senate being so numerically close. We’d have to allow Idaho and Utah to split into 2 for them to ever entertain making DC and Puerto Rico states.
Paul in KY
@m.j.: For quite awhile, the voters in PR did not want to be a state. Lately they have wanted, but GQP will not consider it unless the get an East North Dakota and a West North Dakota created at same time.
Paul in KY
@Cacti: Thank God we did. I praise the heroic Soviet soldiers who gave their lives to stop Nazism. God bless them all.
Paul in KY
@les: You know the statehood for Puerto Rico and DC has to get 60 votes in Senate?
Paul in KY
@NotMax: The GQP sure thinks they would be Democrats (the hypothetical Puerto Rico senators).
Paul in KY
@Citizen Alan: Me too. Those on the right also. Too.
Mallard Filmore
my mistake. ignore this.