All right I need to not spend my Saturday being Mad Online, but I have a couple of short threads to get off my chest. One is about this rhetoric -- ubiquitous on Fox right now -- that Trump voters just want to be "heard."
I don't have the stomach to look up the clips, but just check out basically any Hannity segment from the last few days. This rhetoric is used on the right frequently. It was used about the armed rioters who invaded the Michigan state capitol. It was used in Oregon ...
... when lawmakers fled the state rather than allowing a climate bill to pass, and then armed militia mobs descended on the capitol & intimidated lawmakers into ending the legislative session.
Like many rhetorical tropes on the right, if you just interpret it literally, it makes no f'ing sense. Who has been more heard over the last 4 years than Trump voters? They have fewer votes but the got the presidency & with it their champion dominating every single news cycle.
Every other story in the mainstream media is a soft-focus profile of some Trump voter in a diner somewhere. The largest cable "news" station in the country, along with a sprawling media network, is devoted to propagandizing on their behalf. "Heard"? You can't escape them!
They said this when Obamacare passed too -- waah, waah, it was "shoved down our throats," we weren't "heard"! -- even after months & months & months, hearing after hearing, of negotiating with them.
They said it in Oregon too, about the climate bill -- a bill that had been floating around for years, voted on multiple times, debated to death, delayed & delayed while the white rural minority was "heard" again & again.
So WTF do they mean? Well, you probably know where this is going. It means, "we didn't get our way." It's got nothing to do with being heard. It's that they think they are the Real Americans, so they are supposed to get their way. If they don't, "it's not fair."
This is what *all* procedural complaints on the right amount to: we're supposed to win. We're supposed to get our way. We didn't. Ergo, it's unfair. Ergo, we weren't "heard." There's no other coherent way to interpret it.
They were heard. They lost. Now they're throwing tantrums because they don't like losing & they don't like democracy when they're outnumbered. Any political or media figure who takes the whining seriously should be embarrassed. </fin>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. A giant offshore wind project in NY would substantially increase the region's carbon-free energy, relieve grid congestion, & lower prices. It's being blocked by NIMBYs. Specifically, the wealthy residents of Wainscott, NY have formed Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott.
2. Wainscott is an exclusive coastal enclave with some of the most expensive property in the world. Its population was 650, as of the 2010 census. Basically, it's a small cluster of millionaires. Why do they oppose this project, which would help so many people?
3. It's not the turbines. It's the cable that would bring the turbines' energy to shore. Is it unsightly? No -- the project developers have agreed to underground it. After it's done, it will quite literally be invisible to residents. It will simply pass beneath their enclave.
I was going to tweet this sentiment today, and then @_waleedshahid & @NelStamp went & wrote it out longform: substantial democracy reform must be Dems' top priority in the next 2 years ... or we're fucked. crooked.com/articles/democ…
And when I say top priority, I mean Dems should get this done at *all costs*. If it takes suspending the filibuster, do it. If it takes bribing or threatening some recalcitrant Dems, do it. If it means putting off or sacrificing some other priorities, do it.
If it doesn't get done, there's a very real chance that US democracy slides into autocracy & minority rule. Those are the stakes. Leadership should make clear to every member of the party that they get on board with this or they sacrifice any party support, forever.
In case the symbolism was too subtle for you so far, here's a story of black Capitol police officers, outmanned & unsupported, fighting off domestic terrorists long enough for lawmakers -- including some of the ones who'd stoked the terrorism -- to escape. buzzfeednews.com/article/emmanu…
These are not "protesters."
They don't support the police. They support themselves. Their blue-stripe flag bullshit is just another symbol for white supremacy.
This gets at something I've been thinking about a lot, regarding moral agency & culpability. When people on the right do some horrible thing, it's often said that it was out of mistaken belief, not malice. For example, in their minds they weren't involved in a coup ...
... they were defending democracy in the face of massive fraud & a stolen election. They were wrong about that, but they sincerely believed it. And "defending democracy against fraud" is, morally speaking, a *good* thing. It's what you'd want people do (if there were fraud)!
Now, obviously if they break laws you can hold them *legally* accountable, but the more interesting question is about *moral* accountability. Are you doing something wrong - for which you should be held morally accountable - if you sincerely believe you're doing something right?
A harsh truth lots of people are whistling past: keeping the filibuster in place, as Manchin demands, means no big legislation. Period. There is no major Dem legislation in the world, in the universe, in conceptual space, for which 10 GOP senators would cross the aisle. NONE.
If the filibuster stays, Dems will be confined to what they can squeeze through budget reconciliation. No democracy reform, no climate bill, no health care bill. And voters will end up blaming Biden for gridlock. It sucks, but if you don't like it, talk to Manchin.
The only question mark here is how committed Manchin is to keeping the filibuster. There's *some* possibility that he, like some other D senators, is just giving Rs a chance. If they filibuster more Covid aid or democracy reform, perhaps Manchin will say, "ah, we have no choice."