"beating" the authoritarian impulse out of our fellows

[L.W. Baxter]

the "sinema saves democrats from themselves thread" was a travesty and i apologize.

but what animates my thinking is a developing notion; that there is really only one way to "win" against the reactionary, anti-democratic politics that have infected a sizeable chunk of our population.

we can't win by cramming economic, but more especially social, progress down people's throats. that only hardens the reactionary impulse, and adds numbers to the ranks. this only increases the likelihood of actual civil war.

and, even if eventually victorious through force of arms (unlikely to happen without first getting badly beaten and suffering horrendously), civil war, and a following societal re-boot, is not "winning", not for generations currently alive. period, no matter what.

the only way i can see to win, is to draw at least some of our too-far-gone citizens back into a shared reality, and a stable, lawful, democratic state of mind.

so, at the very moment when folks on the left are ramping up rhetoric about "fighting", and using every means necessary to pass by the narrowest margins the most partisan, most controversial and least cooperative measures, i find myself at odds.

i don't think that controversial law-making is the way to go, with news cycles focused, as they will be, on the abnormally partisan processes of it.

the slow, careful, judicious work of the jan 6 committee and the justice department can do both the dirty job of limiting some authoritarian players for the future, and also provide the evidence of foul play, and the danger represented by it, to those who are near enough to the normal political spectrum to "come back to us".

the democratically controlled government, executive and legislative, can help by providing stability, by cooling the cultural flashpoints, by being the party of competence and even (horrors!) the status quo. this gives people who want out of the looming authoritarian future room to come back.

[C. Ross]

You’re correct.

I also think we have to deal with the causes of hopelessness which causes receptivity to nativist, nationalist, authoritarian ideas.

Lower middle class jobs are disappearing and the wages paid for them are not sustainable. BBB would have really helped the working class which forms the core of MAGA nation.

As I wrote elsewhere Biden ought to cut BBB into about five or six pieces and see which ones peel off some Republican support.

[Hugh MacD]

It looks at last like that's the proposal. I really liked the original BBB plan, but at its inception felt it should have been broken down into "bi-partisan bites" that would have allowed some of the programs to begin while others were being fought over.

[Bill Griffin]

I agree with Chris. I heard a rant from a RW former state senator this morning, who's going to try to get back in office this fall. Typical regurgitating of inflammatory right wing talk about taxes,fraud,guns, mandates and on and on. Couldn't listen to the whole thing.
I'm hoping public hearings of the Jan. 6 committee and smaller scale legislation, and fewer covid cases, will bring some stability.

[Keith Wilson]

I also think we have to deal with the causes of hopelessness which causes receptivity to nativist, nationalist, authoritarian ideas. Lower middle class jobs are disappearing and the wages paid for them are not sustainable. BBB would have really helped the working class which forms the core of MAGA nation.

As I wrote elsewhere Biden ought to cut BBB into about five or six pieces and see which ones peel off some Republican support.

The first is correct (with the clarification of 'white working class'), but I fear we're well beyond the possibility of 'peeling off' any Republican support for much of anything, no matter how helpful. But there is much to be said for being the not-insane party.

Two longer-term points:
- If we can hold things together and fend off the worst anti-democratic authoritarian tendencies, every year helps. Generational and demographic change reduces the far-right base every day. But Keynes was right; in the long run, we're all dead.
- And it's a grim fact that the rate things are going, Covid may tip elections. I'm not sure what the differential death rate is, but age and anti-vaccination sentiments lean heavily right.

[johnw]

the "sinema saves democrats from themselves thread" was a travesty and i apologize.

but what animates my thinking is a developing notion; that there is really only one way to "win" against the reactionary, anti-democratic politics that have infected a sizeable chunk of our population.

we can't win by cramming economic, but more especially social, progress down people's throats. that only hardens the reactionary impulse, and adds numbers to the ranks. this only increases the likelihood of actual civil war.

and, even if eventually victorious through force of arms (unlikely to happen without first getting badly beaten and suffering horrendously), civil war, and a following societal re-boot, is not "winning", not for generations currently alive. period, no matter what.

the only way i can see to win, is to draw at least some of our too-far-gone citizens back into a shared reality, and a stable, lawful, democratic state of mind.

so, at the very moment when folks on the left are ramping up rhetoric about "fighting", and using every means necessary to pass by the narrowest margins the most partisan, most controversial and least cooperative measures, i find myself at odds.

i don't think that controversial law-making is the way to go, with news cycles focused, as they will be, on the abnormally partisan processes of it.

the slow, careful, judicious work of the jan 6 committee and the justice department can do both the dirty job of limiting some authoritarian players for the future, and also provide the evidence of foul play, and the danger represented by it, to those who are near enough to the normal political spectrum to "come back to us".

the democratically controlled government, executive and legislative, can help by providing stability, by cooling the cultural flashpoints, by being the party of competence and even (horrors!) the status quo. this gives people who want out of the looming authoritarian future room to come back.

The problem is, to convince people that our democratic way of life is the best way to live, you have to show that government can do things for them.
We already have a senate and an electoral college that are structured in a way that makes it difficult to have majority rule, and I see no evidence that minority rule produces better results.

When legislative bodies fail, as they did with the Reichstag in the 1930s and the Polish Sjem at the end of the Polish empire, people tend to conclude that only a strong man can get things done.

Remember what Mike Lofgren wrote about his time as a Republican staffer when he left the cult in 2011?

https://truthout.org/articles/goodby...left-the-cult/

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that “they are all crooks,” and that “government is no good,” further leading them to think, “a plague on both your houses” and “the parties are like two kids in a school yard.” This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s – a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn (“Government is the problem,” declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

Tactics of bad faith and obstruction have gotten worse since then. The problem is not differences on policy, it's differences about what America is or should be. Some folks want to tear down the whole structure.

[Osborne Russell]

we can't win by cramming economic, but more especially social, progress down people's throats.

You can't win by cramming alone, but sometimes you have to cram. The law is the law.

Don't cram if you don't have to, I would put it. If you do, don't do it and pretend you're not.

[C. Ross]

How is it you think cutting the BBB into smaller parts will work?

Fair question Mike.

First, the blockbuster approach didn’t work, and the Democrats are kind of flailing around, so what else can they do legislatively?

Second, Keith believes there’s no Republican senate votes to peel off. Maybe he’s right, maybe not. But let’s say there’s a large bill around jobs and economic development - increased minimum wage, additional infrastructure, job training and apprenticeship programs, tax breaks and subsidies for any company willing to build in a depressed area, the whole shooting match. There are a handful of Republican senators from distressed states that would have a really hard time voting no. And if they do, blast them for it and make it incredibly hard for them to vote no on the next one. And wrap that around their throats and squeeze hard in the next election.

The Democrats will get slaughtered in 22 and 24 unless: they create a better story for why people should vote for them that appeals to people who don’t vote much; they mobilize votes like hell on some kind of enthusiasm; and they have something to attack Republicans on other than anti-Trump sentiment. Everybody in the left is going to vote Democratic but you’ve got to get them to vote, and then you need to bring in enough suburban, rural, and indifferent to voting middle and lower middle class people. Biden won by a narrow margin and the House got more Republican because there wasn’t enough appeal to the center which is where elections are won and lost.

And no, the Democrats have not fought for the middle for the last 40 years. With the exception of Obama (who was an anomaly in almost every way) they’ve run candidates with weak or zero appeal to suburban, white, middle-class voters. They haven’t been Bernie or AOC, but to a politically uninterested voter in Ohio or Michigan or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Minnesota - the people who tip elections - they might as well have been.

I know that isn’t inspirational, but a pragmatic, incredibly tough, smash-mouth Democratic appeal is the only way we avoid Trumpist authoritarianism taking us further into the abyss. An inspirational democratic socialist campaign will doom the democrats and the country.

[L.W. Baxter]

You can't win by cramming alone, but sometimes you have to cram. The law is the law.

Don't cram if you don't have to, I would put it. If you do, don't do it and pretend you're not.

good tactical point, absolutely agree.

another one: don't lose intentionally. ever.

this tactic of taking losses to "get people on record" is killing us.

the tactic of singling out your own teammates for shaming is killing us.

and other losing moves?

a.o.c. protest voting against the infrastructure bill was one of the most self destructive, counter productive moves i have ever seen. she showed herself to be exactly what reds think she is; somebody with no interest in "real" things, only her sjw causes. all to get a "hell yeah!" from true believers?

bernie recently wrote an open letter to warren buffet, chiding him to intervene in a labor dispute at a company held by b.h.. buffet very gently slapped him back to the stone age "i have forwarded your letter to the ceo of the company..." and bernie looks exactly like the guy the reds think he is: a kook who doesn't know how things work.

the left needs to start following the president. he is much better at this than the progressive leadership.

[L.W. Baxter]

So we're back to a statement I made a while back. The left does not like your president. The right will never work with the Democrats no matter how moderate. That leaves the reality that if you want us, the left, to work with you, you're going to have to work with us. When we split up as a country, And I think that's where we're headed, this will be much more apparent to you as we, the left, will have real power. But then, you'll probably join the new conservative states anyway since you seem to like their kind better.

speaking of authoritarian impulses. lol.

your fatalism, defeatism, all-or-nothing-ism, isn't even rare among progressives.

you were led to where you are. by the worst politician(s) in generations.

[L.W. Baxter]

I have done everything you guys have asked of me. I've gotten nothing in return. All I'm asking for is what the rest of the 1st world countries have. And, I would say that your politicians have lead us here, at the cusp of civil war, living under a kleptogarchy. We have been doing it your way for 40 years +. Please tell me, how is more of the same going to make things better?

did you know, the population of norway is, ethnically, about 80%...norwegian.

and better than 65% of norwegians are nominally...lutherans.

we are not them.

and give it thirty years. let's just watch, what happens when the most successful democratic socialist societies of europe come to realize that they are no longer providing for other "lutherans"...that is to say, people of their tribe.

you are ready for the american project to be over. diverse people learning to do for one another.

time to spilt up into more homogenous groups.

say, vermont looks nice. lots of people like me in vermont.

but it is the human project of this coming century. we have to figure it out. and it is going to hurt.

[WI-Tom]

the "sinema saves democrats from themselves thread" was a travesty and i apologize.

but what animates my thinking is a developing notion; that there is really only one way to "win" against the reactionary, anti-democratic politics that have infected a sizeable chunk of our population.

we can't win by cramming economic, but more especially social, progress down people's throats. that only hardens the reactionary impulse, and adds numbers to the ranks. this only increases the likelihood of actual civil war.

A thoughtful argument here, one that I see a lot of sense in. I see much of what you see. However, some questions:

1. The bolded bit about "cramming change down people's throats" is a fair point to consider. Is it true, though?

De-segregation, voting rights for Black citizens, and the end of Jim Crow was certainly "crammed down (some) people's throats," wasn't it? And certainly, overall, things have changed for the better since the open Jim Crow era in many ways. So I'm not sure it's really accurate to say that quick forceful coercive change cannot be successful. In fact, in some cases it may be the only way to break through resistance and enable the next generation to accept change without that level of coercion. So that's one thing--I think it's an open question, not a fundamental truth the way you've framed it. I'm not even sure what I believe about it.

In fact, I think that has become one of the most important roles of the federal government (at least as Democrats see it): to ensure that the law of the land is not over-ruled or ignored by the states. And that is central to Republicans' hostility to the federal government--it can make regressive policies popular with R voters harder to maintain.

This next bit--again, thoughtful, reasonable. But I have questions:

the only way i can see to win, is to draw at least some of our too-far-gone citizens back into a shared reality, and a stable, lawful, democratic state of mind.

First, I assume you are talking about voters and not Republican politicians. Politicians have had ample opportunity to come back to a shared reality that promotes stability, lawfulness, and democracy. With few exceptions--we can count them on our thumbs--they have chosen to double down on lawlessness, instability, and autocracy instead. I think it's reasonable to argue that hoping for different results from them is delusional, magical thinking.

OK, so what about voters? Well, as of this month, 79% of Republican voters believe that Trump won the 2020 election. There is ample evidence to prove them wrong, and that evidence is shared daily by many news outlets. With, apparently, no effect whatsoever, or maybe even the effect of strengthening this false belief. Again, is this delusional, magical thinking territory to expect that to change? I suspect that it is.

So, on the surface, your proposed (and very reasonable) approach seems to me to be doomed to failure. It's a bit like NASA deciding back in 1960 that the way to the moon was to hope that someday there would be a day when gravity was turned off and they could achieve escape velocity with a gentle shove. Can we prove that such a thing will never happen? No. But should we, then, believe that it WILL happen?

More questions about this:

so, at the very moment when folks on the left are ramping up rhetoric about "fighting", and using every means necessary to pass by the narrowest margins the most partisan, most controversial and least cooperative measures, i find myself at odds.

i don't think that controversial law-making is the way to go, with news cycles focused, as they will be, on the abnormally partisan processes of it.

Your choice to use the word "controversial," to me, smack of "both-sides-ism"--the idea that anything that doesn't get bipartisan support is "controversial." Quite simply, I don't think you can make a good case for real controversy on many issues. As of September 2020, 63% of Americans wanted universal healthcare. As of May 2021, 66% of Americans (mostly low-income) want some level of student debt forgiveness-which Biden has the Constitutional authority to do with executive orders. How can that be really "controversial"?

Now, how about Citizens United? In 2018, a poll showed that 66% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats want to overturn Citizens United. (Specifically, they back a Constitutional amendment to do so). Again, it's not reasonable to call that a "controversial" idea. And here again, the Constitution clearly lays out a path to achieve it: add progressive/liberal justices to the Supreme Court. That power exists; it's written in. There's nothing sacred about a 9-justice Supreme Court.

Then, too, over 70% of voters want the Supreme Court to put limits on partisan gerrymandering--hardly "controversial." Packing the court would allow that to happen.

The filibuster: how can removing it be deemed "controversial"? Republicans already removed it to nominate their own justices, AFTER breaking with all precedent to block Merrick Garland's nomination. It's a Senate rule, and perfectly legal to change.

I think you make a mistake when you accept that Republican obstructionism is related to anything "controversial" here. If you avoid "controversial" things (by which I guess you mean things that Republicans don't like), then you have allowed Republicans to move the goalposts radically, change the game, and shift things (maybe permanently) farther away from democratic governance and the rule of law.

Republicans and their voters have shown their true colors. I'm quite dismayed about that--my sense is that these people were like this all along, but Trumpism gave them the justification they needed to be open and public about who they really are, and what they really stand for. They have shown, I think, that they will ALWAYS oppose much of what this nation needs (and what the majority of its voters want).

Obama never learned that bipartisanship is an impossibility. Biden hasn't learned it completely, yet. Republicans have gone so far off the rails that the idea that they will ever get back to a reasonable party committed to the rule of law and democratic governance is questionable at the very best.

So, it is a dilemma. Either avoid things that seem likely to trigger opposition from Republicans (I won't call those things "controversial" because, as I've shown above, they aren't)--for the very reasonable and thoughtful reasons you laid out in your post--and let Republicans steer the course of the nation, toward disastrous and anti-democratic results.

Or use the lawful powers of the federal government and the executive branch to aggressively sustain our institutions and the rule of law.

The failure to move aggressively--but lawfully--is, to me, the real danger. Not the fact that millions of Republicans will squeal in outrage when the things that need doing get done, coercively if necessary.

Your view, as I say, is reasonable. I'm troubled by the same things you are. But I don't think there is time for playing the long game you describe, no time to build the bottom-up change needed. I'm concerned that states will restrict voting, and even move to empower state legislatures to overturn the popular vote results if Republicans lose. That's already in the works.

Move slowly now, in an attempt to avoid triggering opposition, and the risk of losing the entire democracy is extreme.

Like it or not, if Democrats don't start cramming some changes and protections down Republicans' throats, we may be seeing the end of democracy in the U.S. Another coup, maybe. Or simply the continued erosion of the rule of law, and suppression of democracy. It's an existential threat, and an immediate one. It needs strong action now.

I fear we won't get it, though.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

You’re correct.

I also think we have to deal with the causes of hopelessness which causes receptivity to nativist, nationalist, authoritarian ideas.

Yes to that last bit, for sure. But I have questions about how "correct" the OP is, as my previous post lays out.

As I wrote elsewhere Biden ought to cut BBB into about five or six pieces and see which ones peel off some Republican support.

If this happens--I suspect it will--it will be interesting to see the results. I have few expectations that Republicans have any intention of acting in good faith on anything, but I suppose if certain aspects of BBB are seen to be popular with Trumper voters, it may get some R support.

Tom

[leikec]

A lot of what seems to be going on in this thread is a discussion about “What Strategy is Best to Use” as opposed to “What Strategy is Left as an Option”.

My worry is that both points have become obsolete and largely irrelevant. I hope I’m wrong.

Jeff C

[John Smith]

It looks at last like that's the proposal. I really liked the original BBB plan, but at its inception felt it should have been broken down into "bi-partisan bites" that would have allowed some of the programs to begin while others were being fought over.

Would you bet on any Republican support for any piece of it?

[John Smith]

One strategy, IMO, is people in some states, if they want to have their vote counted, would be wise to register as Republicans.

[Hugh MacD]

One strategy, IMO, is people in some states, if they want to have their vote counted, would be wise to register as Republicans.

The drawback with that is that in some states the primary ballots are set up by party...so they can only vote for Republican candidates. They might be able to write-in Democratic candidates, but that might flag the ballots for "accidental" destruction as well.

[Too Little Time]

the "sinema saves democrats from themselves thread" was a travesty and i apologize.

but what animates my thinking is a developing notion; that there is really only one way to "win" against the reactionary, anti-democratic politics that have infected a sizeable chunk of our population.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/871...-as-to-protect
A quote from James Madison

[The Senate] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

It is easy to forget that the founders had much different thoughts about what makes a democracy.

[Osborne Russell]

But let’s say there’s a large bill around jobs and economic development -

How, in the current context, do we avoid the appearance, if not the reality, that we are paying them for what they owe us, i.e. allegiance to the Constitution?

[L.W. Baxter]

...Your choice to use the word "controversial," to me, smack of "both-sides-ism"--the idea that anything that doesn't get bipartisan support is "controversial." Quite simply, I don't think you can make a good case for real controversy on many issues....

the issues don't matter.

the trouble with populism is, it sets people against people, rather than people against problems.

all your great ideas don't mean spit right now.

as i have argued previously, when you have insisted that progressive economic policy ideas "have majority support in every district in the country", you are talking about a vacuum. in our current cultural context, people are not driven to solve problems, even their own. they are set against the "other".

left wing populists are different, but the same. remember the 99%? as a first principle, establish an enemy. it's all downhill from there, to authoritarianism, right or left.

you can see it in mcmike's readiness to call it quits, to see the country divided into pieces, with the "other" seperated. it is no longer about trying to solve problems within our united constitutional republic.

[WI-Tom]

the issues don't matter.

the trouble with populism is, it sets people against people, rather than people against problems.

I disagree about that. I've taken great pains to show several ways that Democrats could move aggressively to solve problems that large majorities of the public want solved, including:

1. Creating a larger Supreme Court that would end partisan gerrymandering and overturn Citizens United. If ever there were nonpartisan issues, these two qualify. They solve PROBLEMS, they don't put people against people. Or at least, that's not the goal.

2. Use executive powers to cancel a significant amount of student debt. A widely popular move that would undoubtedly help Democrats win seats in 2022 and 2024. Perhaps enough to make Manchin irrelevant (Sinema won't be re-elected anyway), and allow:

3. Universal health care.

You don't like McMike's reactions, but he sees very clearly that Democrats are failing to act aggressively in the ways they CAN act, and seem to be unaware that they may enable the creation of a country in which Republicans are never out of power, ever again, no matter who votes for what party. That has already happened in Wisconsin--we're 10 years ahead of what is happening nationally right now. For example:

In 2018, Republican Scott Walker lost the governor race by 1% in Wisconsin. But statewide, 63 of the 99 legislative districts in the Assembly went to Republicans. Even when Republicans lose, they win. That's what's coming for the nation, and coming fast.

And your solution is "avoid controversy"? And hope that, this time, people's better natures and native good sense will return, if only the Democrats do all they can not to propose things Republicans don't like?

I'm not buying it. We don't have time for your long game, no matter how sensible it is. Osborne Russell is right: Don't cram, unless you need to.

They need to. And soon. But I doubt they will.

Tom

[David G]

[L.W. Baxter]

In 2018, Republican Scott Walker lost the governor race by 1% in Wisconsin. But statewide, 63 of the 99 legislative districts in the Assembly went to Republicans. Even when Republicans lose, they win. That's what's coming for the nation, and coming fast.

and who is the governor of wisconsin today?

you are in love with losing.

[L.W. Baxter]

I'm ready for a representative government where the government represents the people.

right. like the people who voted for hillary, and then joe, above bernie? those people?

because joe biden is president right effing now.

i voted for him. he represents me.

and i voted for my federal representative (bonamici) , and my senators (wyden and merkely). and my state legislators, and my governor.

all of those people are in office. and they all represent me.

[WI-Tom]

and who is the governor of wisconsin today?

Too cryptic for me. What's your point?

My point was that one might reasonably expect down-ballot results to follow the major race. But even though the Democratic candidate won the governorship by 1%, 63 of 99 legislative assembly seats went to Republicans because of Republican gerrymandering.

you are in love with losing.

Ooh, "rephrasing"! Watch out for twodot!

I'll go back to McMike's point: Your "moderate" approach of not offending anyone hasn't worked for decades. Why do you expect it to work now, when Republican partisan obstructionism is worse than it's ever been? At what point does sticking with the same old thing, which hasn't worked, begin to appear unproductive?

Maybe it's you in love with losing. I can understand why you might be. The status quo is a very comfortable place for many people.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

right. like the people who voted for hillary, and then joe, above bernie? those people?

because joe biden is president right effing now.

i voted for him. he represents me.

and i voted for my federal representative (bonamici) , and my senators (wyden and merkely). and my state legislators, and my governor.

all of those people are in office. and they all represent me.

Yep, you ARE privileged. Your vote counts, and you have candidates that represent your interests. That's not true of many people. Republicans have seen to that. But then, I guess for you it's "I've got mine, so **** you. Stop complaining and let me enjoy MY government."

Tom

[Durnik]

Yep.

And a facebook link, so it will disappear in a week or so - but facebook will still track everyone who looks at this page, even after we no longer see the pic.

For Gawds sake, people, on a thread on stopping authoritarianism we share tracking code to the largest organization in the world dedicated to totalitarianism!?!?!

Save the pic and post it!


media_censors.jpg


Now, rethink that meme in light of sars/cv2 - if your echo chamber allows it.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
—Carl Sagan,

[L.W. Baxter]

curious, how cynical and pessimistic some people can be about the present state of affairs in the u.s. (oligarchy! kleptogarchy!), while simultaneously foreseeing, after violence and revolution, a rearrangement of our society into a scandanavian-style socialist democracy, in which their own minority voice somehow comes to rule over the majority.

i am less cynical about the current state of affairs, and i feel certain that any revolutionary rearrangement of our society is going to suck ass.

[Keith Wilson]

Revolutions do not have a good record, statistically.

[Durnik]

^ Too true. So why did the Dems insist on leading us to this point?

the only way i can see to win, is to draw at least some of our too-far-gone citizens back into a shared reality, and a stable, lawful, democratic state of mind.

Rep pols will not work with Dems.. period. Rep voters will not accept Dem pols, period.

We twice offered you a non Dem, independent pol who was accepted (mostly by Reps and Dems. Twice, Dems played games to make sure their choice won. Shades of the cartoon "I trusted you lord, why didn't you save me? Well, I sent a boat and a helicopter, but.."

Dems were gonna force us to accept their chosen messiahs.. talk about authoritarian.. again, shades of "beatings will continue until morale improves".

As McMike asked, it's been done rhe Dems moderate way for decades, what makes any sane person imagine continuing (we all remember "Stay the Course!", eh?) in the same bent will suddenly have different results? Einstein's comment on insanity, anyone?

Yeah, it's all the fault of those damn lefty libs who are just tired of $6 trillion gifts to TATFW, and squat for the workers. Class warfare is alive and well.. and True Blues are Standing Strong w/ Reps in support of those beleaguered billionaires!

[L.W. Baxter]

Revolutions do not have a good record, statistically.

the more likely scenario than revolution or civil war, though, is an elected authoritarian government that turns full on fascist in the oppression of dissidents.

that election is the thing i fear.

sometimes democracy kills itself. that is the process we are experiencing, and many--right and left--are actively promoting, right now.

[L.W. Baxter]

is it literally true that "reps won't work with dems. period."? a lot is riding on getting this right.

this fall we had republicans breaking with trump to vote for the infrastructure/jobs bill, and again for the debt ceiling increase.

and last jan. 6 it was an institutionalist republican who stymied the coup attempt, insuring the certification of the democratic winner of the presidential election. mike pence, of all people.

it wasn't "the law" that did it. it was a man.

and it is my argument that it is institutionalist republican voters and representatives--people, not "the law"--that can keep our constitutional republic alive. unless, that is, we paint them into a corner, rob them of their allies, and present them with no tenable option other than reaction.

[icyb]

Anyone think Bernie would get more done with MItch

[Durnik]

What happened to Mayor Pete?

The DNC had 4 ringers to collect True Blue 'progressive' votes from Sanders, and then 'give them' to Biden, the least liberal/progressive candidate running - but you knew that. True Blues are still in denial.

this fall we had republicans breaking with trump to vote for the infrastructure/jobs bill, and again for the debt ceiling increase.

But of course, but that was Dems working with Reps on what Reps wanted.. a subtle but important distinction.

Regarding Sanders, the problem is solved if he is registered and runs as a Democrat.

Completely missed that it was 'being Dem' which is the problem.. which explains why True Blues can't fix it.. being that knowledge of the problem is a prerequisite to said fixing.

Gentlemen, either think outside the box, or own the problems you refuse to acknowledge - but it isn't the fault of those who see them.

[Osborne Russell]

No one would, but that's why I think we're headed for a split-up of the USA.

But is it a reason to hold out for a Bernie, or equivalent? Having been shut down by McConell or equivalent, what would Bernie 2 do?