Cont: Trump's Coup - Part 3

[Paul2]

This is a very narrow definition of "democratic". The first amendment prevents, at least in theory, the majority from exercising it's will to enact laws that restrain some types of speech. Anything that seeks to prevent the majority will from getting it's way is in some sense anti-democratic. Of course, we choose the meaning of "democratic" that suits our purpose and prejudices. For the constitution to be democratic it should take no more than a bare majority to change it.

Agreed. The Bill of Rights is anti-democratic for the purpose of reining in the majority when it tramples the rights of the minority. Then, there are the anti-democratic measures, like representation in the Senate, whose purpose is to provide a balance and separation of powers. The electoral college's purpose was to get the slave states on board.

All those purposes are in service of trying to create a functioning democracy. That is in sharp contrast to the current anti-democratic measures from Repub state legislatures (we can include gerrymandering by both parties in here, too) whose purpose is to keep power.

Because we can use the same word, "anti-democratic" for both doesn't mean that both are equally within the spirit of the Constitution, even if both are legal. And I'm not minimizing its problem by calling it (merely) outside the spirit of the Constitution. That can still be fundmentally problematic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rolling Stone: Start the Steal: New MAGA Emails Reveal Plot to Hand Arizona to Trump - Exclusive emails obtained by Rolling Stone expose an attempt to recertify the state as a victory for Donald Trump — and reveal top Trumpworld figures were complicit

The person who wrote the Power Point presentation is revealed in the emails and he's a contagious nutter.

Waldron, who says he worked in the Defense Intelligence Agency’s clandestine service and had ties to former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, is part of a small group of military veterans who have argued that Chinese Communist Party front groups, Venezuelans, and voting-machine companies have all contributed to vote-rigging and election fraud.

Waldron would go on to write a PowerPoint presentation titled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 JAN” that described a number of ways to try to stop the certification of Biden’s election victory.

The amount of influence these people had recruiting GOP believers is getting bigger and bigger. Probably not hard when you dangle the idea the election outcome can be reversed. They were selling a cult version of snake oil.

First time I've seen Reince Priebus named as directly involved. Maybe I missed it earlier.

 

[Stacyhs]

I have stated this in other places before. Trump is deluded but not crazy. He does not believe in any sort of objective reality. If you want something to be true then you make it true. If you fail to make it true then you did not want it badly enough.

The source of this came from his and his father's "religious" affiliation with Norman Vincent Peale who pushed the "Power of positive thinking" BS out there. The Secret, is the same BS.

Donald's more recent spiritual advisor is Paula White, who is a prosperity Christianity proponent.

I agree that he isn't 'crazy' but he is severely mentally ill to the point where it impedes his ability to think rationally or beyond in own self-interests.

You must have read Mary Trump's book in which she discusses the influence that N. V. Peale's BS philosophy had on Fred and Donald.

 

[shuttlt]

Agreed. The Bill of Rights is anti-democratic for the purpose of reining in the majority when it tramples the rights of the minority. Then, there are the anti-democratic measures, like representation in the Senate, whose purpose is to provide a balance and separation of powers. The electoral college's purpose was to get the slave states on board.

All those purposes are in service of trying to create a functioning democracy.

Towards the end of WW2, and later when the proto-EU was being set up, ideas of forming superstates, federalism and so forth were in the ether. The Kantian idea of peace through uniting Europe. Once you start thinking about continental government in this way, the idea of world government naturally pops up.

The typical argument I've seen against the feasibility of this from the 40s/50s has been that the people of Asia, Europe, South America etc.... are too culturally different to be under a common government that they would identify with. At least that would be an obstacle for any foreseeable future worth worrying about.

Jean Monnet, one of the key people behind the creation of the EU had an idea that if you just imposed the institutions of a superstate over Europe, identification with nations and national difference would whither, and a new European Man would emerge. He hoped that the EU would slowly expand into Africa and Asia in this way.

Some of his ideas seem to come from Communism - the Communist Man that would appear when True Communism had been achieved. A lot also came from the time he spent in the US where he thought he saw this process of a common identity being forged, and the States fading into the background, well underway.

It seems to me that, unless one supposes that a deracinated Federal/European Man, of the sort Monnet imagined, can somehow be induced to appear, then the programme of unifying a collection of people with very different views about life under a centralised government isn't necessarily achievable. The closer you get to it, the more resistance you will create.

The recent history of Europe and the US doesn't make me optimistic about the achievability of this idea to turn the nations of Europe or the States in the US into irrelevant anachronisms. Maybe mass immigration with be enough, I don't know. It's still a problem though that I don't think can be ignored. January 6th is just that issue bubbling to the foreground again.

That is in sharp contrast to the current anti-democratic measures from Repub state legislatures (we can include gerrymandering by both parties in here, too) whose purpose is to keep power.

Gerrymandering is one of those things that it is hard to stop unless one believes that bureaucracies can be trusted to be apolitical, and will be seen as apolitical. My preferred solution is to make sure that redistricting has to be approved by some individual or body that represents the majority of the impacted citizens. We generally think our enemies motives are dirty and ours are clean. I would rather consider these issues in terms of their effect rather than the secret reasons we think we detect.

Because we can use the same word, "anti-democratic" for both doesn't mean that both are equally within the spirit of the Constitution, even if both are legal. And I'm not minimizing its problem by calling it (merely) outside the spirit of the Constitution. That can still be fundmentally problematic.

Any system that sets up blocks to the majority of citizens instantly getting their way is necessarily anti-democratic in some way. Every sentence of the Constitution that limits the power of government is an affront to democracy since in limiting the government that represents the will of the people, the Constitution limits the people. Perfect democracy is tyranny. Arguments that take something as being anti-democratic to be synonymous with bad are bad arguments.

 

[Stacyhs]

That's because most of those at the Capitol didn't know what being Republicans use to mean Lincoln believed a strong Republic based in respect for the law and the Constitution would protect the rights of All.
This is not a Belief held by the Modern Anti Republic Republicans, who are actually mainly Libertarians.

I agree. Today's Republicans bear virtually no resemblance to the Party of Lincoln. Many books have been written on this very subject by historians but try to convince Republicans of this fact. I've dealt with a few. Even after presenting these books and other articles by historians, they refused to believe the two parties basically swapped platforms keeping only their names. In their defense, they presented Youtube videos by non-historians. My favorite was a rant by a far-right preacher filled with factual errors. It's a great example of people wearing blinders to anything they don't want to see.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree. Today's Republicans bear virtually no resemblance to the Party of Lincoln. Many books have been written on this very subject by historians but try to convince Republicans of this fact. I've dealt with a few. Even after presenting these books and other articles by historians, they refused to believe the two parties basically swapped platforms keeping only their names. In their defense, they presented Youtube videos by non-historians. My favorite was a rant by a far-right preacher filled with factual errors. It's a great example of people wearing blinders to anything they don't want to see.

Look they need fantasy because reality has a well known liberal bias.

 

[Stacyhs]

Look they need fantasy because reality has a well known liberal bias.

 

[shuttlt]

I agree. Today's Republicans bear virtually no resemblance to the Party of Lincoln. Many books have been written on this very subject by historians but try to convince Republicans of this fact. I've dealt with a few. Even after presenting these books and other articles by historians, they refused to believe the two parties basically swapped platforms keeping only their names. In their defense, they presented Youtube videos by non-historians. My favorite was a rant by a far-right preacher filled with factual errors. It's a great example of people wearing blinders to anything they don't want to see.

The "swapped sides" thing is pointless rhetoric. It depends on what ideas you decide were core to the parties and when you choose to look. What would it even mean if somehow they had completely swapped platforms given that the world has changed quite a bit in 150 years. It comes up as often as it does because it's a game of "I'm going to blame you for slavery to win an argument". How you define your terms determines your answer.

 

[Paul2]

Any system that sets up blocks to the majority of citizens instantly getting their way is necessarily anti-democratic in some way. Every sentence of the Constitution that limits the power of government is an affront to democracy since in limiting the government that represents the will of the people, the Constitution limits the people. Perfect democracy is tyranny. Arguments that take something as being anti-democratic to be synonymous with bad are bad arguments.

Are you agreeing with me, then, that the anti-democratic election measures that Republican legislatures are taking in order to stay in power are bad, whereas some anti-democratic provisions in the Constitution are not (as) bad because they are merely trying to forge a functioning democracy?

 

[Pacal]

Maybe. Generally I think these kinds of labels are either nuanced enough to allow for disagreement on this kind of question, or so stripped down that they have lost much of their real world meaning.

Well in 1860 and 1864 Lincoln ran has the candidate for the Presidency for the then Republican party and was then considered a Republican by both the Republican party and Lincoln's Democratic opponents. Lincoln was also a bona-fide member of the Republican party. So in 1855-1865 Lincoln was considered a Republican. Whether or not now Lincoln would be considered a Republican is another question.

There is certainly some similarity with the Confederate notion of states rights. Still, prior to the 1870s, I thought a lot of people were under the impression they were in favour of the Republic while also believing the Union was voluntary. It's pretty clear that some Territories were under this impression when they joined the Union.

Actually the whole "States Rights" debate is rather interesting and pointless at the same time. Before the American Civil War there was a vigorous debate on whether or not individual states had the right to secede from the Union. In fact there had outside the South been periodic threats from some to leave the Union. (People in New England during the War of 1812 period for example.)

Now to be clear virtually everyone in the USA at the time agreed in the right of people to Revolution if they were oppressed etc. What the debate eventually degenerated over was whether or not it legal and constitutional for a state to secede whenever it wanted to. In other words a legal right to unilateral succession.

That is where the debate broke down over. The simple fact is the Constitution gives no such unilateral right. The argument for the right to secede was that it was implied. The problem is Nations usually don't have suicide clauses. And during this time period there also emerged the idea of some sort of perpetual Union, which could not be left at a whim. Presidents like Andrew Jackson did not believe in any legal right to secede at leisure. The result was that by 1860 practically the entire North did not believe in a legal right to secede at a whim. Whereas in the South it became probably the majority of opinion that states could secede unilaterally at any point if they so wished.

Why? Well because "states rights" was used to defend slavery and in the last extremity a state could to preserve slavery secede in this view. The idea of "states rights" was also used has a club to demand the extension of slavery to new areas. (How that worked is an amusing example of twisted thinking.) Further "states rights" was used to justify the Federal Government interfering in Free states to protect slavery. You see Federal interference against slavery violated "states rights", Federal interference for slavery supported "states rights". All of this was based on a twisted notion of what interference in local affairs was "really".

Thus seceding states clamped down hard on regions of their states that didn't want to leave the Union etc.

You see in this vision of "states rights" and to protect local "freedom" from interference the state must be able without such interference deny rights to others and grind them underfoot. That sort of governmental interference was perfectly fine. And after the Civil War "states rights" was used to justify segregation, jim crow etc.

Just how seriously the new Confederacy took "states rights" is indicated by the fact their constitution said nothing about a right to secede and further it banned states abolishing slavery. So much for "states rights".

Since the Civil War the whole right to secede argument is rather pointless, aside from the fact even before the Civil War the idea that individual states had a legal right to secede unilaterally was simply absurd on the face of it based on little more metaphysical theorizing. but it enabled those who thought in that way to avoid thinking about the practical problems involved.

As for the "Confederate" notion of "states rights" it strikes me has special pleading.

 

[shuttlt]

Are you agreeing with me, then, that the anti-democratic election measures that Republican legislatures are taking in order to stay in power are bad, whereas some anti-democratic provisions in the Constitution are not (as) bad because they are merely trying to forge a functioning democracy?

No. I don't like mind reading. Of course political parties take advantage of opportunities when they are available. It's not as if politics is, or could be, full of Jimmy Stewarts. Necessarily that skews the results of elections. All that is a given. If one assumes the motives of the founders were necessarily high and noble, well... I'm not convinced that is how they saw each other. I defer to their judgement.

Any serious system of government, that you don't want to immediately fall into unsustainable tyranny, has to assume that the people in power are greedy, power hungry and self interested. That seems to me to be the key difference in assumptions between the American and French revolutions.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The "swapped sides" thing is pointless rhetoric. It depends on what ideas you decide were core to the parties and when you choose to look. What would it even mean if somehow they had completely swapped platforms given that the world has changed quite a bit in 150 years. It comes up as often as it does because it's a game of "I'm going to blame you for slavery to win an argument". How you define your terms determines your answer.

Just look at the religious shift in politics, before Nixon Southern Baptist Were Democrats after Nixon they were Republicans. There is a very good reason for that.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Well in 1860 and 1864 Lincoln ran has the candidate for the Presidency for the then Republican party and was then considered a Republican by both the Republican party and Lincoln's Democratic opponents. Lincoln was also a bona-fide member of the Republican party. So in 1855-1865 Lincoln was considered a Republican. Whether or not now Lincoln would be considered a Republican is another question.



Actually the whole "States Rights" debate is rather interesting and pointless at the same time. Before the American Civil War there was a vigorous debate on whether or not individual states had the right to secede from the Union. In fact there had outside the South been periodic threats from some to leave the Union. (People in New England during the War of 1812 period for example.)

Now to be clear virtually everyone in the USA at the time agreed in the right of people to Revolution if they were oppressed etc. What the debate eventually degenerated over was whether or not it legal and constitutional for a state to secede whenever it wanted to. In other words a legal right to unilateral succession.

That is where the debate broke down over. The simple fact is the Constitution gives no such unilateral right. The argument for the right to secede was that it was implied. The problem is Nations usually don't have suicide clauses. And during this time period there also emerged the idea of some sort of perpetual Union, which could not be left at a whim. Presidents like Andrew Jackson did not believe in any legal right to secede at leisure. The result was that by 1860 practically the entire North did not believe in a legal right to secede at a whim. Whereas in the South it became probably the majority of opinion that states could secede unilaterally at any point if they so wished.

Why? Well because "states rights" was used to defend slavery and in the last extremity a state could to preserve slavery secede in this view. The idea of "states rights" was also used has a club to demand the extension of slavery to new areas. (How that worked is an amusing example of twisted thinking.) Further "states rights" was used to justify the Federal Government interfering in Free states to protect slavery. You see Federal interference against slavery violated "states rights", Federal interference for slavery supported "states rights". All of this was based on a twisted notion of what interference in local affairs was "really".

Thus seceding states clamped down hard on regions of their states that didn't want to leave the Union etc.

You see in this vision of "states rights" and to protect local "freedom" from interference the state must be able without such interference deny rights to others and grind them underfoot. That sort of governmental interference was perfectly fine. And after the Civil War "states rights" was used to justify segregation, jim crow etc.

Just how seriously the new Confederacy took "states rights" is indicated by the fact their constitution said nothing about a right to secede and further it banned states abolishing slavery. So much for "states rights".

Since the Civil War the whole right to secede argument is rather pointless, aside from the fact even before the Civil War the idea that individual states had a legal right to secede unilaterally was simply absurd on the face of it based on little more metaphysical theorizing. but it enabled those who thought in that way to avoid thinking about the practical problems involved.

As for the "Confederate" notion of "states rights" it strikes me has special pleading.

A very thoughtful summary, my family knew Lincoln as a teenager.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... Of course political parties take advantage of opportunities when they are available. ....

Even under this underlying premise, there are still lines no one had really crossed until Dump and his cult followers came along.

 

[Paul2]

No. I don't like mind reading. Of course political parties take advantage of opportunities when they are available. It's not as if politics is, or could be, full of Jimmy Stewarts.

Evaluating what the Republicans are doing as bad has nothing to do with thinking politics could be full of J. Stewarts. That politics will have some nasty folk is an empirical situation, whereas I’m making an evaluation (negative) given that the current Repub election shenanigans is corrosive to the foundation of democracy in a way that makes, say, good old fashioned pork barrel politics seem quaint in comparison.

Necessarily that skews the results of elections. All that is a given. If one assumes the motives of the founders were necessarily high and noble, well... I'm not convinced that is how they saw each other. I defer to their judgement.

This has less to do with the motives of the founders, and more to do with the structure of the Constitution.

Any serious system of government, that you don't want to immediately fall into unsustainable tyranny, has to assume that the people in power are greedy, power hungry and self interested.

There’s one exception to that: when the greedy, power-hungry, and self-interested try to be tyrannical, which is what’s happening now with the Repub legislatures.

 

[Doubt]

The "swapped sides" thing is pointless rhetoric. It depends on what ideas you decide were core to the parties and when you choose to look. What would it even mean if somehow they had completely swapped platforms given that the world has changed quite a bit in 150 years. It comes up as often as it does because it's a game of "I'm going to blame you for slavery to win an argument". How you define your terms determines your answer.

No, they really was a serious realignment. Go find the 1972 Republican platform and ask yourself which party is sounds more like today. Nixon ignored the platform after the nomination and started going after the disaffected democrats in the South who were not thrilled with moves Johnson had made to go after minority votes. Had Nixon any actual principles, he would have stuck to the civil rights background of the party. But instead he started them down the road to where they are now.

 

[Stacyhs]

The "swapped sides" thing is pointless rhetoric. It depends on what ideas you decide were core to the parties and when you choose to look. What would it even mean if somehow they had completely swapped platforms given that the world has changed quite a bit in 150 years. It comes up as often as it does because it's a game of "I'm going to blame you for slavery to win an argument". How you define your terms determines your answer.

No, it's not "pointless". It's historical fact and it's not only factually wrong but dishonest for Republicans to claim they're the Party of Lincoln. But then again, what else is new?

 

[shuttlt]

No, it's not "pointless". It's historical fact and it's not only factually wrong but dishonest for Republicans to claim they're the Party of Lincoln. But then again, what else is new?

You are right. The Democrat platform today is just the same as the Republican platform in the 1860s. How could I have failed to see it?

 

[shuttlt]

No, they really was a serious realignment. Go find the 1972 Republican platform and ask yourself which party is sounds more like today. Nixon ignored the platform after the nomination and started going after the disaffected democrats in the South who were not thrilled with moves Johnson had made to go after minority votes. Had Nixon any actual principles, he would have stuck to the civil rights background of the party. But instead he started them down the road to where they are now.

Parties and cultures change over 150 years. The idea that they swapped is childish nonsense. The only way this argument can be made is to reduce everything to very narrow questions stripped of inconvenient nuance, as you are doing now.

A strange thing about this argument is that it's always about civil rights/slavery. Nobody ever tries to claim that the two parties swapped over because the Republican's of the 1860s were the party representing corporate America, railroad barons etc... and that the Democrats represent corporate America today. The reason for that is that the claim about the parties swapping is constructed to be politically useful.

The other issue is that the whole, the Democrats of today are like the Republican's of the 1860s ending racism, only works if you look at the Democrats as the Democrats look on the Democrats. If the Democrats being the good guys and on the right side of history is baked into your assumptions, the conclusion follows naturally. If it isn't, they don't. The argument preaches only to the choir.

Really the whole thing works in the same way as comparing somebody to Hitler. It's a way of removing one side of the argument by analogy rather than by engaging with their case.

 

[shuttlt]

The result was that by 1860 practically the entire North did not believe in a legal right to secede at a whim. Whereas in the South it became probably the majority of opinion that states could secede unilaterally at any point if they so wished.

This to me seems like the key point that links the 1860s to today. There are two incompatible visions of the country that can't be unified or met halfway. As in the 1860s, the Federal government is going to interpret the Constitution and the law to protect the power of the Federal government.

My expectation is that the process of centralising power within the Federal government and associated oligarchic corporate interests will continue for the foreseeable future. That will continue to build pressure within the US just as it is in Europe. Possibly that can all be ridden out and, with enough immigration, made irrelevant.