We have to protect people who would be targeted by Republicans.
How’s that going? Republicans are enacting all manner of bigoted policy. What are the Democrats doing to reverse their hateful shit at the federal level?
I’d love if we didn’t have to worry about fascists, but we don’t have that luxury. As long as they’re a hair’s breadth away from power, we pick the option that opposes them.
We don’t have that option. We have Democrats, who will always care more about decorum and procedural bullshit than they ever will about protecting anyone.
They don’t have the numbers in Congress necessary to take federal action. It’s a vicious circle – people don’t think they’re doing enough, so they don’t vote for them. As a result, they don’t have the numbers necessary to actually affect change. And then people don’t think they’re doing enough, and so forth. The justice department is suing states at least, but I agree that’s nowhere near enough.
If you have a way to get 60 Senate votes to protect minorities (or 50-51 who also are willing to overturn the filibuster) and the House majority, I’m all for it, and you have my support. In the absence of that, any action we take will be inadequate, no matter who is in office.
And Democrats may not be perfect, but a vote that doesn’t go to fascists is a win in my book. I also think we should try to maintain norms and decorum for as long as possible – if we can beat back fascism without compromising on our institutions, we emerge as a much stronger democracy than if we have to break the rules. If that’s what it takes to stop fascists though, then so be it. I just worry that you end up in a French Revolution type situation where there’s no stable governance because everyone’s given up on the rules.
How’s that going? Republicans are enacting all manner of bigoted policy. What are the Democrats doing to reverse their hateful shit at the federal level?
We don’t have that option. We have Democrats, who will always care more about decorum and procedural bullshit than they ever will about protecting anyone.
They don’t have the numbers in Congress necessary to take federal action. It’s a vicious circle – people don’t think they’re doing enough, so they don’t vote for them. As a result, they don’t have the numbers necessary to actually affect change. And then people don’t think they’re doing enough, and so forth. The justice department is suing states at least, but I agree that’s nowhere near enough.
If you have a way to get 60 Senate votes to protect minorities (or 50-51 who also are willing to overturn the filibuster) and the House majority, I’m all for it, and you have my support. In the absence of that, any action we take will be inadequate, no matter who is in office.
And Democrats may not be perfect, but a vote that doesn’t go to fascists is a win in my book. I also think we should try to maintain norms and decorum for as long as possible – if we can beat back fascism without compromising on our institutions, we emerge as a much stronger democracy than if we have to break the rules. If that’s what it takes to stop fascists though, then so be it. I just worry that you end up in a French Revolution type situation where there’s no stable governance because everyone’s given up on the rules.