A great many Americans didn't want democracy during the Civil War. Slavery was decidedly undemocratic.
A great many Americans didn't want democracy during Jim Crow when African-Americans were lynched for trying to vote. That wasn't democratic.
2/
A great many Americans didn't want democracy when the Fifteenth Amendment was passed and women were deliberately omitted. Denying the vote to women was not democratic.
Democracy scares people.
They prefer power concentrated in the hands of people who look like them.
3/
I concluded my earlier thread about the legal problems with the #TexasLawSuit by saying that a kind of cynicism was behind the lawsuit.
People who don't want democracy don't believe that fairness and equality are possible.
These are the same people who think tyranny is when the government tries to get people to wear masks in a pandemic, and good government when the wealthy get tax breaks.
They are "hierarchy" people (instead of "fairness") people.
They think there’s a natural order.
5/
They think some people naturally belong on top. Others (the takers) belong at the bottom and don't (can't) contribute.
For them, the purpose of government is to allocate power. When they're in power, they try to grab more.
They assume everyone sees government this way.
6/
Because they don't believe "fairness" is possible.
Fairness people, on the other hand, believe equality is possible, so for us, the purpose of government is to create fairness, to give everyone equal opportunity, and to prevent cheating.
7/
It's really the same division that has always been there.
Fairness and hierarchy people have two different views of history and literally want two different forms of government.
That's why it's such a big divide, and why the problem has always been with us.
8/
The fairness view of American history goes like this: The founders started with some pretty good ideas, but they left out a lot of people. As we've expanded who is included in "we the people," America comes close to our founding ideals.
The graph looks like this ⤵️
9/
Hierarchy people think that democracy is messy and disordered. They use the word "corrupt" in the sense of "defiled." The body politic is corrupted by the unworthy trying to achieve equality, which they perceive as someone trying to dislodge them from their place at the top.
10/
They think America has gone downhill--it used to be great [when white men had all the power.] They see the graph of history like this. That's why they want to make America great "again."
Democracy requires compromise, but they don't want to share power.
11/
But⤵️Trump tells them they're at the top of the hierarchy.
That's why they love him. It's the same reason poor whites supported the Confederacy, which was (to use @HC_Richardson's phrase) an oligarchy. Poor whites weren't part of the ruling class.
Trump: "You are the top of the hierarchy. The reason you don't have more is because 'others' (unworthy minorities, migrants at the gates) are taking what is rightfully yours.
So they love him.
13/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is equal parts horrifying and absurd. These are not real electors. There is not a "competing" slate of electors.
It's the Nevada GOP showing that they are completely unhinged from reality.
You see, Nevada certified its election for Biden on 11/24. forbes.com/sites/alisondu…
Nevada law requires that the electors are legally bound to vote for whoever wins the presidential election in NV. apnews.com/article/electi…
Dear Nevada GOP:
It's time for Election Law 101.
Because of a complicated system we have called the electoral college, when you vote for president, you don't actually vote for president, you vote for a slate of electors.
The GOP electors lost when Trump lost the election.
Petitioners sought to "invalidate the ballots" of more than 220,000 Wisconsin voters in Dane and Milwaukee Counties.
As with the other complaints, the issue wasn't that any voters did anything wrong; it's how the election was conducted.
1/
The doctrine of laches as applied to elections in a nutshell: You can't agree to the rules, wait to see how the election turns out, and then challenge the rules.
That's why lawyers kept saying the courts won't allow it, even if the judges are Republicans.
Reading recommendation: Rand Corp, "The Russian Firehose of Falsehoods Propaganda Model," includes advice on how to counter a rapid and continuous stream of lies. rand.org/pubs/perspecti…
The liar has a “shameless willingness” to tell outrageous lies that lots of people know are lies.
The liar doesn’t care about consistency.
He doesn’t care if it’s obvious he’s lying. rand.org/pubs/perspecti…
In fact, that's the whole point.
Putin perfected the method.
2/
It seems to come naturally to Trump.
@TimothyDSnyder tells how reporters were often so astonished by Putin's outrageous lies, that they focused on the lies instead of Putin's latest atrocities.
The lies became the news.
The actual news gets pushed off the stage.
3/
I'll lay the entire process out here, and show why this can't happen. Applicable law: The Electoral Count Act and of course, your favorite document and mine, the Constitution, or, if you prefer cliff notes: crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF…
Both Houses are required by law to declare the winner of the election.
But (and here's the rub) members may object to particular electors.
2/
This creates some theater. Trump loyalists can object.
What then? If both a Senator and member of the House object to a particular elector, there is a recess. The Houses meet separately for a maximum of 2 hours.
They vote. If both Houses agree, the delegates are tossed.
3/
In Trump World, it makes sense to spend months and millions of dollars trying to overturn an election while ignoring a virus that killed over 300,000 Americans.
For Trump and pals, the purpose of government isn’t to help people. It’s to protect the power of those at the top.
Some people don't believe that. They think some people belong at the top, and that if nature takes its course, the "makers" end up a the top and the "takers' at the bottom. . .