A Republic, If You Can Keep It

[malchior]

A sobering assessment of the risk that the Republic faces in the next two years. I recommend a read of the piece because it lays out the probable sequence ahead of us.

The Democratic Party is in trouble.
The basic problem facing the Democratic Party is simple: Barring an extraordinary change to America’s political landscape, it will lose control of Congress in 2022 and have a difficult time regaining control for a decade thereafter.

To be sure, the assumption that existing political trends will continue indefinitely has been leading pundits astray since the advent of our loathsome profession. And in certain respects, the future of our politics looks more uncertain than at any time in recent memory. For example, the fact that a critical mass of Republican voters now belong to the personality cult of a narcissistic con man — who has no real investment in the conservative movement’s well-being — makes the prospect of the GOP fracturing more thinkable than it’s been in about a century.

This said, the trends bedeviling Democrats have been in motion for decades and are rooted in America’s most durable political divides. To summarize the party’s predicament: As a result of 19th-century efforts to gerrymander the Senate, the middle of our country is chock full of heavily white, low-population, rural states. This has always been a problem for the party of urban America — by boasting stronger support in rural areas, Republicans have long punched above their weight in the race for control of state governments and the Senate. But for most of the 20th century, this advantage was mitigated by the Democrats’ (1) vestigial support in the post-Confederate South and (2) ability to render local issues more salient than national ones in Senate elections. Over the past two decades, however, urban-rural polarization in U.S. politics has reached unprecedented heights, while the collapse of local journalism and rise of the internet has made all politics national. Voters have never been less likely to split their tickets, and white rural areas have never been more likely to vote for Republicans. This is plausibly because the (irreversible, internet-induced) nationalization of politics has increased rural white voters’ awareness of the myriad ways that urban, college-educated Democrats differ from them culturally. If this is the case, then the Democratic Party may have only a limited ability to reverse urban-rural polarization in the near-term future.

It took a series of minor miracles for the party to eke out its current 50-vote majority. By coincidence, Democrats happened to have their most vulnerable incumbent senators on the ballot two years ago, when the party rode anti-Trump fervor to one of the largest midterm landslides in American history. And yet: Winning the House popular vote by 8.6 percent was not sufficient to prevent the party from losing Senate seats. And although Jon Tester and Joe Manchin won reelection in their deep-red states, both underperformed the national environment: In a year when the nation as a whole favored Democrats by more than eight points, both Democratic incumbents won their races by a bit over three points. Which is to say, had those senators been on the ballot last year instead, when the national environment favored Democrats by “only” 4.4 percent, they likely would have lost. Or, to put the matter more pointedly: Unless the Democratic nominee orchestrates an extraordinary landslide in 2024, Manchin and Tester will likely return to the private sector by mid-decade.

[Paingod]

When Democrats don't use their trifecta to rebalance America's electoral playing field - and/or, attain a degree of popularity without modern precedent - they will clear the way for a proto-authoritarian right to take power by mid-decade.

Fixed that for them.

My faith in Democrats to coordinate well enough with each other to effectively counter the lock-step of the GOP is basically non-existent. It's like pitting a pick-up group of football players against an ordered shield wall from the Roman army.

[YellowKing]

All I know is that it's incredibly depressing to think that Trump was probably only the beginning of the end, not the end of the beginning.

[Paingod]

In my mind, the best thing to come out of the Trump presidency was his foolishly hammering so hard on his own party that it cracked and he was able to squeeze out the worm-brains and racists into the light and made them feel normal. With that raw rot exposed and fighting to stay normalized, the GOP has a serious image problem that it used to keep tucked under carpets and in closets.

[YellowKing]

But apparently an image problem 70+ million people are perfectly OK with.

[Paingod]

An image problem that drove 80+ million people to oppose it. It shook up people who've never been shaken up before.

Imagine a GOP that didn't have Trump and silently worked against democracy in the shadows for the last four years and was able to win the 2nd election as well.

[Alefroth]

When Democrats don't use their trifecta to rebalance America's electoral playing field - and/or, attain a degree of popularity without modern precedent - they will clear the way for a proto-authoritarian right to take power by mid-decade.

Fixed that for them.

My faith in Democrats to coordinate well enough with each other to effectively counter the lock-step of the GOP is basically non-existent. It's like pitting a pick-up group of football players against an ordered shield wall from the Roman army.

Assuming they had the will, how could they use the trifecta to rebalance the electoral playing field?

[El Guapo]

When Democrats don't use their trifecta to rebalance America's electoral playing field - and/or, attain a degree of popularity without modern precedent - they will clear the way for a proto-authoritarian right to take power by mid-decade.

Fixed that for them.

My faith in Democrats to coordinate well enough with each other to effectively counter the lock-step of the GOP is basically non-existent. It's like pitting a pick-up group of football players against an ordered shield wall from the Roman army.

Assuming they had the will, how could they use the trifecta to rebalance the electoral playing field?

Well, the main things that they can do are restrictions on voter suppression (such as automatic voter registration), and anti-gerrymandering legislation. They can also admit DC as a state.

[Paingod]

Maybe coax Puerto Rico into being one as well? Is that a thing we could do?

[Alefroth]

Could they do any of that with a simple majority (assuming they can even get that)?

[El Guapo]

Could they do any of that with a simple majority (assuming they can even get that)?

Yes, though they would very likely have to eliminate the filibuster as to that category of legislation (civil rights / voting bills), unless Mitch McConnell's heart suddenly grows three sizes.

[Alefroth]

Could they do any of that with a simple majority (assuming they can even get that)?

Yes, though they would very likely have to eliminate the filibuster as to that category of legislation (civil rights / voting bills), unless Mitch McConnell's heart suddenly grows three sizes.

Well, that's the roadblock, isn't it? Do you think they'll get any Republican support for eliminating it? They may be able to change Sinema's mind, but I don't see Manchin budging.

[Carpet_pissr]

Could they do any of that with a simple majority (assuming they can even get that)?

Yes, though they would very likely have to eliminate the filibuster as to that category of legislation (civil rights / voting bills), unless Mitch McConnell's heart suddenly grows three sizes and strokes out as a result, which seems likely given the whole hands thing.

FTFY

[Little Raven]

Maybe coax Puerto Rico into being one as well? Is that a thing we could do?

The idea that Puerto Rico would be some kind of guaranteed Democratic stronghold seems....very misguided to me. It is very poor, and very Catholic, with very strong feelings on abortion. I suspect the GOP culture war machine could turn it red in a heartbeat if they ever cared to try.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Their governors tend to align more with the Democratic party, but governorships don't necessarily correlate with presidential picks, as can be seen in a decent number of states.

[Little Raven]

Their governors tend to align more with the Democratic party, but governorships don't necessarily correlate with presidential picks, as can be seen in a decent number of states.

Especially given the EPIC amounts of corruption in the current PR government.

[Kraken]

Maybe coax Puerto Rico into being one as well? Is that a thing we could do?

The idea that Puerto Rico would be some kind of guaranteed Democratic stronghold seems....very misguided to me. It is very poor, and very Catholic, with very strong feelings on abortion. I suspect the GOP culture war machine could turn it red in a heartbeat if they ever cared to try.

+1. Republicans have been very mean to PR so they'd probably come out of the chute Democratic, but staying reliably blue over the long haul is a stretch.

[El Guapo]

Could they do any of that with a simple majority (assuming they can even get that)?

Yes, though they would very likely have to eliminate the filibuster as to that category of legislation (civil rights / voting bills), unless Mitch McConnell's heart suddenly grows three sizes.

Well, that's the roadblock, isn't it? Do you think they'll get any Republican support for eliminating it? They may be able to change Sinema's mind, but I don't see Manchin budging.

No, this essentially requires Manchin's support. I don't take that as a given, BUT unless Manchin is satisfied with doing literally nothing for the next couple years, the Democrats will at a minimum have to hack away at the filibuster. So I suspect that there's a deal to be made between Schumer and Manchin / Sinema (the latter agree to restrict the filibuster, in exchange for Schumer giving them some high priority items for them as part of a budget reconciliation bill or the like).

We'll see, though.

[Alefroth]

I think Manchin will be delighted with doing nothing. The fewer votes he has to make, the better his chances of re-election.

I'm hoping someone like Romney would back it.

I don't know for sure, but I'm assuming that eliminating the filibuster isn't subject to filibuster.

[El Guapo]

I think Manchin will be delighted with doing nothing. The fewer votes he has to make, the better his chances of re-election.

I'm hoping someone like Romney would back it.

I don't know for sure, but I'm assuming that eliminating the filibuster isn't subject to filibuster.

I think Manchin's a much better bet than Romney. Depends somewhat on what he wants, does he plan to run for reelection in 2024 (he has flirted in the past with running for governor), etc. I don't think Manchin will ever be on board for eliminating the filibuster, but shrinking it in one or two key areas of priority for Democrats seems doable.

The filibuster has been restricted in the past by majority vote (when they abolished it for SCOTUS confirmations, for example), so the precedent for doing so is pretty well established.

[Isgrimnur]

It's not Constitutional, either!

[Smoove_B]

I think Esquire has it right - make them vote:

Instead of attempting to deal with someone who is not interested in passing legislation, Democrats should write bills addressing pressing national issues with solutions that are popular with the American public. Then they should bring those bills to the floor and force senators to vote on them. A big reason nothing gets done anymore is that for years now, senators could block legislation with just the mere threat of a filibuster. They were not even required to actually filibuster them, meaning take to the Senate floor to yap away like an asshole for hours on end. At the very least, if you're going to singlehandedly block legislation, you should have to get up and announce it's you who's doing it.

...

In general, the goal should be to make members of the United States Senate vote on things. Stop letting people off the hook with procedural squabbles. Put them on the record so that citizens know how their representatives voted. It also makes for easier messaging in future elections and pressure campaigns.

...

Speaking of, similar tactics may need to be used on the conservative Democrats who still claim to harbor delusions of returning to an era of Bipartisan Comity and Compromise. As we discussed yesterday, Joe Manchin's claim that his Republican colleagues are ready and willing to come to the table on vital legislation is nearly as insane as what's often coming out of Republican mouths. It's hard to believe that he truly believes it. But either way, he and Kyrsten Sinema—and any other possible holdouts—must be convinced to join the Democratic caucus when it comes time to get rid of the filibuster in its current form.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, another direction to go is to bring back the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington "talking filibuster" - e.g., force senators to actually talk for 24 hours etc. in order to filibuster things. Would restrict its use in practice, and would be consistent with filibuster supporters yapping about the good old days of the Senate and whatnot.

[malchior]

I don't think that is a bad idea except that no one cares how the sausage is made. Americans have largely stayed ignorant of Congress and just thinks it's all politics. Or worse bought into bullshit justifications or conspiracy theories.

Another fun scenario occurred to me when Leahy got hospitalized the other day. Leahy is 80. If Leahy were to say get sicker or die, Vermont's Governor is currently a Republican. The VT Governor would then be able to appoint a Republican and Mitch is back in the drivers seat for the 6 months until a Special Election can be held.

[Drazzil]

I've been watching, waiting, listening to the news and watching things very closely. None of these podcasters, or news institutions or pundits will talk about this. The United States we know and recognize is doomed. Our government will NOT take the steps needed to salvage the situation. Not on the left, not on the right. We are like a mountaineer being blown towards an abyss. The mountaineer can take one step forward, but in the same time they are blown five steps back.

I thought about starting a podcast about these events, of what to do next, put a spotlight on left wing mutual aid organizations and defense groups. No dice. It would be a roadmap for the fascists to come kill them. We need to START talking about what we can and should do AFTER the fall, NOW, when it can save lives. No one will touch this. I know I'm dead in the first couple of weeks. I'm out of shape, need meds, medical conditions etc, and I reside in a powder keg of a city. Maybe I can save someone else though. Who knows?

[Jaymann]

Dude, I lived through the late '60's, early '70's, and if anything it was even bleaker. Nixon gets re-elected by a landslide. They were drafting kids and shipping them off to Vietnam. John Mitchel was the Attorney General. The cops ran rampant, and they could throw you in prison for life for possession of a little weed. They didn't just talk about executing people, they assassinated them. But we survived. Yes, it's bleak now, but just do your best to resist it.

[Drazzil]

Dude, I lived through the late '60's, early '70's, and if anything it was even bleaker. Nixon gets re-elected by a landslide. They were drafting kids and shipping them off to Vietnam. John Mitchel was the Attorney General. The cops ran rampant, and they could throw you in prison for life for possession of a little weed. They didn't just talk about executing people, they assassinated them. But we survived. Yes, it's bleak now, but just do your best to resist it.

Did we have 4/5ths of the population un or underemployed? Did we have a virus running rampant forcing people to live in their homes like bunkers? Did we have one half of the population in a cult? Did we have a political class completely and totally disconnected from reality? Governing for the best interests of LITERALLY a thousand citizens to the death and detriment of the rest of us? I believe this is worse.

[Kraken]

Dude, I lived through the late '60's, early '70's, and if anything it was even bleaker. Nixon gets re-elected by a landslide. They were drafting kids and shipping them off to Vietnam. John Mitchel was the Attorney General. The cops ran rampant, and they could throw you in prison for life for possession of a little weed. They didn't just talk about executing people, they assassinated them. But we survived. Yes, it's bleak now, but just do your best to resist it.

Did we have 4/5ths of the population un or underemployed? Did we have a virus running rampant forcing people to live in their homes like bunkers? Did we have one half of the population in a cult? Did we have a political class completely and totally disconnected from reality? Governing for the best interests of LITERALLY a thousand citizens to the death and detriment of the rest of us? I believe this is worse.

First, it's a stretch to call even 1/5 of the population un- or underemployed. Opening with hyperbole cripples your argument before it even starts.

Apart from that, I agree that the comparison with the '60s is of limited use (having also lived then). On Jaymann's side: When Detroit was in flames, the very white people of Grand Rapids were literally up in arms. My dad got out his Civil Defense helmet and quietly loaned guns to neighbors who needed them, because there was a Black family just a few blocks away and a whole lot more of them downtown. One night he slept in the living room with a rifle. When I was 10 years old I was terrified of Blacks. That's at least as fucked up as today.

On Drazzil's side: We didn't have White supremacists and reality deniers filling a large percentage of all positions of power. Back then, we skirted anarchy. Today, we're flirting with fascism. The core similarity is that revolution was in the air both times -- from the Left in the '60s, and from the Right today.

So you're both wrong and you're both right. How's that for bipartisanship?

[malchior]

Dude, I lived through the late '60's, early '70's, and if anything it was even bleaker. Nixon gets re-elected by a landslide. They were drafting kids and shipping them off to Vietnam. John Mitchel was the Attorney General. The cops ran rampant, and they could throw you in prison for life for possession of a little weed. They didn't just talk about executing people, they assassinated them. But we survived. Yes, it's bleak now, but just do your best to resist it.

Did we have 4/5ths of the population un or underemployed? Did we have a virus running rampant forcing people to live in their homes like bunkers? Did we have one half of the population in a cult? Did we have a political class completely and totally disconnected from reality? Governing for the best interests of LITERALLY a thousand citizens to the death and detriment of the rest of us? I believe this is worse.

First, it's a stretch to call even 1/5 of the population un- or underemployed. Opening with hyperbole cripples your argument before it even starts.

The U6 is about ~12% right now which is pretty high but not 20%. There is however a population with 20% unemployment -- people making less than $40K. This factoid was dropped by E. Warren the other day so take that for what it is. And that is probably accurate enough. That's really bad. It puts the GOP playing games in perspective at least.

[Alefroth]

Dude, I lived through the late '60's, early '70's, and if anything it was even bleaker. Nixon gets re-elected by a landslide. They were drafting kids and shipping them off to Vietnam. John Mitchel was the Attorney General. The cops ran rampant, and they could throw you in prison for life for possession of a little weed. They didn't just talk about executing people, they assassinated them. But we survived. Yes, it's bleak now, but just do your best to resist it.

Did we have 4/5ths of the population un or underemployed? Did we have a virus running rampant forcing people to live in their homes like bunkers? Did we have one half of the population in a cult? Did we have a political class completely and totally disconnected from reality? Governing for the best interests of LITERALLY a thousand citizens to the death and detriment of the rest of us? I believe this is worse.

First, it's a stretch to call even 1/5 of the population un- or underemployed. Opening with hyperbole cripples your argument before it even starts.

Apart from that, I agree that the comparison with the '60s is of limited use (having also lived then). On Jaymann's side: When Detroit was in flames, the very white people of Grand Rapids were literally up in arms. My dad got out his Civil Defense helmet and quietly loaned guns to neighbors who needed them, because there was a Black family just a few blocks away and a whole lot more of them downtown. One night he slept in the living room with a rifle. When I was 10 years old I was terrified of Blacks. That's at least as fucked up as today.

On Drazzil's side: We didn't have White supremacists and reality deniers filling a large percentage of all positions of power. Back then, we skirted anarchy. Today, we're flirting with fascism. The core similarity is that revolution was in the air both times -- from the Left in the '60s, and from the Right today.

So you're both wrong and you're both right. How's that for bipartisanship?

[stessier]

Dude, I lived through the late '60's, early '70's, and if anything it was even bleaker. Nixon gets re-elected by a landslide. They were drafting kids and shipping them off to Vietnam. John Mitchel was the Attorney General. The cops ran rampant, and they could throw you in prison for life for possession of a little weed. They didn't just talk about executing people, they assassinated them. But we survived. Yes, it's bleak now, but just do your best to resist it.

Did we have 4/5ths of the population un or underemployed? Did we have a virus running rampant forcing people to live in their homes like bunkers? Did we have one half of the population in a cult? Did we have a political class completely and totally disconnected from reality? Governing for the best interests of LITERALLY a thousand citizens to the death and detriment of the rest of us? I believe this is worse.

First, it's a stretch to call even 1/5 of the population un- or underemployed. Opening with hyperbole cripples your argument before it even starts.

Apart from that, I agree that the comparison with the '60s is of limited use (having also lived then). On Jaymann's side: When Detroit was in flames, the very white people of Grand Rapids were literally up in arms. My dad got out his Civil Defense helmet and quietly loaned guns to neighbors who needed them, because there was a Black family just a few blocks away and a whole lot more of them downtown. One night he slept in the living room with a rifle. When I was 10 years old I was terrified of Blacks. That's at least as fucked up as today.

On Drazzil's side: We didn't have White supremacists and reality deniers filling a large percentage of all positions of power. Back then, we skirted anarchy. Today, we're flirting with fascism. The core similarity is that revolution was in the air both times -- from the Left in the '60s, and from the Right today.

So you're both wrong and you're both right. How's that for bipartisanship?

I would contend that the 60s absolutely had white supremacists filling a large percentage of all positions of power.

[Drazzil]

Dude, I lived through the late '60's, early '70's, and if anything it was even bleaker. Nixon gets re-elected by a landslide. They were drafting kids and shipping them off to Vietnam. John Mitchel was the Attorney General. The cops ran rampant, and they could throw you in prison for life for possession of a little weed. They didn't just talk about executing people, they assassinated them. But we survived. Yes, it's bleak now, but just do your best to resist it.

Did we have 4/5ths of the population un or underemployed? Did we have a virus running rampant forcing people to live in their homes like bunkers? Did we have one half of the population in a cult? Did we have a political class completely and totally disconnected from reality? Governing for the best interests of LITERALLY a thousand citizens to the death and detriment of the rest of us? I believe this is worse.

First, it's a stretch to call even 1/5 of the population un- or underemployed. Opening with hyperbole cripples your argument before it even starts.

Apart from that, I agree that the comparison with the '60s is of limited use (having also lived then). On Jaymann's side: When Detroit was in flames, the very white people of Grand Rapids were literally up in arms. My dad got out his Civil Defense helmet and quietly loaned guns to neighbors who needed them, because there was a Black family just a few blocks away and a whole lot more of them downtown. One night he slept in the living room with a rifle. When I was 10 years old I was terrified of Blacks. That's at least as fucked up as today.

On Drazzil's side: We didn't have White supremacists and reality deniers filling a large percentage of all positions of power. Back then, we skirted anarchy. Today, we're flirting with fascism. The core similarity is that revolution was in the air both times -- from the Left in the '60s, and from the Right today.

So you're both wrong and you're both right. How's that for bipartisanship?

Ermm. Yeah I was wrong on that. I did listen to an economics podcast somewhere that said if you counted all the discouraged workers, all the ppl working in lower paying jobs cause they had to all the underemployed workers, and ppl who couldn't break into the field they wanted to etc, the real unemployment number was close to 50%. They cited quite a few studies but I wasn't listening that closely.

[Unagi]

seems like a ridiculously broad net to cast, to count 'unemployed'... Including the "ppl who couldn't break into the field they wanted ", I mean - whah???

[Isgrimnur]

There's a table for that: