bad theology aside its worth saying that he can’t even get his labels right. “eschatology” relates to religious doctrines concerning the final fate of humanity. what erickson is trying to discuss is “soteriology,” the term for doctrines of salvation
probably worth saying, as well, that in the dispensationalist eschatology of American conservative evangelical christianity, God whisks away the saved/elect and subjects the rest of humanity to seven years of escalating horror culminating in near total annihilation.
there is no real way to extricate this fantasy of the armed white property owner standing off against thieving hordes from either america’s settler history or from the deep-seated and pervasive antebellum fear of slave revolt
it is arguably one of the ur-american fantasies, something recapitulated again and again in our media and pop culture
right. “if a legislature passes a bill and the governor vetoes it can still become law if it passes by majority vote in a statewide referendum” makes democratic sense, even if i’m not thrilled about it.
when you consider too that michigan republicans have gerrymandered themselves into a majority that can with stand consecutive popular vote defeats, it sure sounds like this is just outright minority rule
“The Senate is structurally biased against the party with a large urban constituency therefore we should use our fleeting majorities to pass as much legislation as we can and the filibuster inhibits this” isn’t that difficult to understand.
Also, there is the little thing of how the Republican Party is radicalizing against majoritarian democracy and the only way to shore up the right to vote is with federal legislation that, hey, the filibuster makes impossible to pass.
Many people have written easily available and detailed arguments against the filibuster in its current form and it is probably worth reading them before pontificating on what filibuster opponents think.
I have seen a few tweets chastising folks for describing this bill as Jim Crow adjacent, a criticism which relies on ignoring the obvious context as well as the basic fact that Jim Crow laws did not say, in the text, that they were discriminatory.
The most well-known Jim Crow voting provisions — literacy tests, poll taxes, etc. — were facially neutral laws justified as measures against fraud.