The right response to Republicans opposing the 1/6 commission is that they're doing this because they're implicated in the crime. Their excuses are entirely unmoored from anything resembling good faith arguments. Here's a rundown of the 5 most absurd ones: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Republicans claim the Jan 6 commission is "partisan."
That's nonsense on its face. But what they really mean is that if the commission doesn't give them absolute veto power over investigative direction, they won't permit for it to be called bipartisan:
Republicans claim existing committees preclude the need for a Jan 6 commission.
What Republicans really want is for the scope to remain focused only on security -- and not on the causes leading up to the insurrection. Because that would implicate *them*:
Memo to Joe Manchin: McConnell is telling Republicans to oppose the bipartisan 1/6 commission on grounds that it will hurt them in 2022. One party is abandoning democracy. Either Dems will defend it on a partisan basis or it won't happen at all. New piece: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
McConnell privately told Republicans to oppose the commission because it's too partisan.
For McConnell, nothing will count as a bipartisan commission unless it is badly hamstrung from focusing on the role of Trump and Republicans in inciting the attack:
Mark McCloskey is running for Senate in Missouri, and his chief selling point is that he brandished a gun at racial justice protesters. This again shows how essential a fantasy fiction version of the leftist threat has become to GOP identity. New piece: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Candidates often speak of a transformative experience that awakened their desire to serve the public.
McCloskey's version?
“God came knocking on my door disguised as an angry mob. It really woke me up."
Stop saying Republicans are "cowards" who "fear Trump." This lets them off the hook in a very fundamental way. They *want* a future in which they treat hated election outcomes as subject to invalidation. They are building this future right now. New piece: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
One ally of Liz Cheney told @sbg1 that she is a "living reproach to all these cowards."
This got lots of buzz. But it's a weak frame. It implies Rs would prefer on principle to defend democracy and would do so if only they didn't fear the consequences:
1) My defense of liberalism and criticism of where we're falling short has generated a lot of thoughtful and interesting responses -- thanks for that! -- so I thought I'd do a thread with a bunch of further reading on this topic.
2) @HelenaRosenblat's lost history of liberalism captures a lot of the neglected ways in which liberals sought to develop a conception of the common good, which liberalism is constantly (and wrongly) criticized for lacking:
@HelenaRosenblat 3) The great Stephen Holmes' "Anatomy of Antiliberalism" is a really useful cataloging of the criticisms thrown at liberalism over the centuries, and why they falter under scrutiny. Many critiques you hear today have their roots in these old arguments:
Time to retire the wretched phrase "economic migrant."
Severe material deprivation is not somehow a "bad" reason to try to migrate. We need to lean harder into being part of actual regional solutions, for our own good.