What if it all goes right?

Politics and religion
62

I think this is the fundamental issue. In an ideal scenario this might be true. Republican politicians in swing states or moderate districts would be incentivized to participate in compromise legislation. However our FPTP method of selection, combined with the primary system, ensures this is not actually the case.

Instead of this theoretically sane version, instead we get one where a GOP pol from a moderate district who crosses the aisle would be immediately primaried. And primaries being what they are, the crazification and extremist candidate would be more likely to win. And with politics being identity for so many, and their politics their religion for evangelicals in particular, the fact that a more extreme candidate wins the primary means that they would likely win the general. So a moderate politician who worked to craft bipartisan legislation to benefit their district, would wind up out of office in favor of some Laura Loomer type loonie.

We do not, however, see the same degree of feedback on the Dem side. I submit as my example Daniel Lipinski, my former rep, who actively thumbed his nose at the liberal constituents in his very strong Dem and liberal district, and was the most conservative democratic house member. For years he was actively hostile to his districts liberal voters, he even voted against the ACA I believe, but only this year lost his primary.

63

All good questions. I think the main factor might be if there’s any reason to think anything is different this time. If post-Bush Republican prospects are different from post-Trump ones. If I’m trying to think about Mitch McConnell’s motivations in 2009, I can imagine thinking “People actually want Republicans in power–for security and economic reasons–but this fairly moderate charismatic change candidate beat our old pre-ordained moderate candidate. So now we can work on those moderate agenda items with him and validate all those votes that swung to the other party, or we can make sure they don’t accomplish anything and trust things will swing back to us when the bloom is off the Obama rose.”

On the Democratic side, things look pretty similar. A moderate candidate. A potentially big swing.in the executive and legislative branches. Although the motivation on the Dem side is less positive in favor of their candidate than negative against Trump. So on the other side, does Mitch still have reason to think that people actually want the GOP (presumably his old GOP) in power? Did the rejection of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz in the 2016 primaries communicate something about the old Reagan-Bush style of Republican governance? I think that will determine McConnell’s strategy. I can certainly see plenty of reasons that he ends up thinking “Yes, the old obstruction strategy will bring us back to power again, like last time.”

64

I think it’s a mistake to believe the answer to this question interests McConnell in the slightest. He does not care what people want; he cares what he can make them do in furtherance of conservative power. He can make them elect a Republican, any Republican, by the simple expedient of firebombing any attempt by elected Democrats to govern. He got them to elect Donald fucking Trump that way!

Let’s try this another way. What are the popular initiatives that President Joe should focus on, that will be so popular that McConnell will feel obligated to help Joe pass them?

65

Sounds exactly like what the GOP actually has been doing. Its time to shit or get off the pot, and the dems have been forced to eat a whole lot of gop chili over the last 10 years. Gonna be some big ones.

67

Who would have thought a lack of critical thinking skills in your electorate would destroy a democracy?

Answer: anyone with critical thinking skills

68

I can see zero reasons he thinks anything else. There is no Republican political strategy that involves ideological triangulation. That’s because the range of policy options in the Republican party is highly constrained. You can either be an extremist conservative you can be raving, shit-throwing lunatic conservative. By the standards of anyone sane, Obama is a conservative. Biden is a conservative. That’s precisely why the #NeverTrumpers all speak and write so highly of them. The Democratic party contains all of the sane ideological options in U.S. politics. McConnell isn’t evaluating voters’ responses to Republican politicians’ ideologies. Republican voters don’t care about that, or can be shaped to care about whatever the GOP propaganda apparatus tells them to care about. McConnell just does what Republicans always do, chums the water with red meat.

69

If the moderates realize they can’t get anything they want without big change, they’ll reluctantly go along. I think they’re scared enough right now that they might just go for it.

I think a lot of the Republicans will talk a big game about armed insurrection, but most won’t have the guts to do it. They just have too much to lose. Especially if you make sure to Waco the first group that tries and then say they got what they deserved.

I do think the moderates fear that going to these tactics will result in the Dems following the path of Republicans and going to the fringe. That might happen.

70

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, if it all goes right, I think maybe the order of priorities:

  1. Change Senate rule at the start of the session so there’s no more filibuster
  2. Coronavirus relief bill, to help economy and to help stop the spread and get a vaccine out when it’s available.
  3. Environmental bill first. Get it out of the way because it’s the most necessary but the least urgent in people’s minds because people think it’s a long term problem and can be dealt with later.
  4. Infrastructure bill, go big
  5. Shore up the ACA, public option.
71

Thank you!

72

You have Gordon’s axe, and his bow, staff, sword and spell book.

73

FYI, it doesn’t have to be done at the start of the session (although it probably should). You can eliminate the filibuster by majority vote through what used to be called the “nuclear option.” This is having the majority leader raise a point of order saying majority vote is enough to close debate, and when the Senate parliamentarian denies then point of order, appealing to the Senate, which can make the change by majority vote.

Both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell used this to make the changes to filibuster of executive appointments and Supreme Court appointments, respectively.

74

I would put 1.5 - Presidential Accountability Act - make it clear that the President can be indicted for crimes while in office.

75

I like this idea. I was thinking a Conservative Supreme Court might strike down such a law, but for that to happen, it would have to be contested in court first, and it certainly wouldn’t be contested by Biden. So it would have to be contested under a future Tucker Carlson administration. And I think they’d only be able to do that if he was actually indicted first.

76

Any president could easily appoint an AG who doesn’t believe that the president is immune from federal prosecution while in office, and the DOJ would reverse their position. Since that doesn’t happen, I think it means presidents like the idea that they’re immune from federal prosecution while in office. I imagine Joe might sign such a law if Congress presented him with one, but I doubt he’d push for it otherwise.

77

It’s Murc’s Law - only Democrats have agency.

78

79

Yeah, that’s the trick. The system can handle a corrupt wannabe dictator if other parts of government are not complicit.

GOP Senators have put party loyalty above loyalty to the legislative branch and the larger republican project, with predictable consequences. The pathetic thing is they don’t even have to be afraid of getting murdered like the Roman Senators did. They at least had that excuse.

80

I mean i live in Texas and have these conversations all the time, and they efficiently boil down to a couple of principles, which is negative politics, information capture, and one issue voting.

The GOP has learned this lesson well. I mean, for the first time in years - decades - i’m seeing GOP ads in Texas. Literally, the ads being run by Cornyn are 1) dems coming for your guns and 2) dems coming for your health care (which, at this point, is basically like an echo issue that no longer makes sense).

The reason i say that disenchanted conservatives need to clean their own house is because of those one issue voters that will never actually agree to vote democratic, under any circumstance, unless, more or less, democrats agree to cede the one issue they are hung up on.

The alternative is this mythical “swing voter” but it’s clear that swing voters - actual swing voters - are swing voters because they’re ideologically unclear and probably informationally challenged. In effect they represent a slice of the electorate that is more susceptible to personality and mood swings of the times, have no problems holding inconsistent positions. If it’s these swing voters that we need to discuss, how best to tailor Democratic policies and actions for them, that’s, imo, a somewhat different conversation, and is as much or more about perception than substance.

But conservative, true conservative voters, one issue voters, aren’t going to switch parties for any reason, because they’ve been ideologically captured by the right. A conservative that hates all gun control isn’t going to compromise with any amount of gun control. To even gain the opportunity to serve him politically the Democratic establishment would have to declare their support to end all gun regulations. Likewise with abortion, likewise with climate change and environmental regulations.

And a party that as its national platform has declared itself to reject climate change, gun control, and abortion already exists… it’s just not the Democratic Party. To meet in the middle means being willing to compromise - nay, really, it means to cede - to conservative demands on those three policy positions above. And, tbh, that list once it became part of the dialog would just grow. Pretty quickly conservatives would learn of their sudden influence, and add more exclusions to the pile, like raising taxes for any reason.

That’s why i tell conservatives that they need to vote against their party not for policy position but because of corruption and the rule of law. Because a voter that votes to abolish gun regulations in the face of clear violations of the rule of law really does care less about the rule of law than guns.

All this goes against (imo) your thesis that passing popular legislation is what needs to be done - because all these one issue voters will never vote for the other party, no matter how popular that legislation was or unpopular their own party is. What you’re really asking, imo, is how to break the stranglehold on American politics these binary trumped-up issues have on our collective ability to act.

81

I heartily concur with and endorse Enidigm’s post.

82

preach on.