Stand by for a Twitter summary. But first, more ☕️.
2/ Before I continue, I had an insight reading some Twitter comments.
At least I understand why some people blame the Democratic leadership for the fact that the Republican Party is anti-democratic and actively trying to destroy democracy.
The insight is this . . .
3/ If you think there's an easy solution — if you think if the Democratic leadership simply does X or Y, the Republican danger will dissipate—it can feel frustrating.
Criticism takes two forms. First: "The Democrats are ineffectual and incapable of stopping the threat."
4/ This is a general "They should make it stop" criticism.
The second is from people who have the answer. "If the Democrats would just X, the problem will go away."
(I'm not talking about frustration with Manchin sticking by the filibuster. I'm talking about something larger.)
5/ I'm talking about the idea that the anti-democratic actions of the Republican Party are the fault of ineffectual Democrats.
The problem is deeper.
The problem, as @SykesCharlie recently said, is that tens of millions of voters support the GOP as insurrectionists.
6/ That brings me to my video.
People were so shocked by the fact that the Republicans killed a bipartisan commission to look into the January 6th insurrection, that I started with this observation.
8/ People on Twitter found my report of Mercieca's book so helpful I wanted to include it in my video.
The rhetorical devices she describes overlap with the tactics used by fascists, as explained by scholars like @jasonintrator and Robert Paxton.
9/In fact, Paxton argued that the world’s first fascists weren’t Italians under Mussolini. They were Ku Klux Klan members.
The Confederacy was decidedly anti-democratic.
So it’s really no shock that one of our two parties is anti-democratic, right?
10/ There are lots of those guys around and they want a party, too.
There will always find leaders willing to cater to them. Or opportunists willing to court their votes.
I also talked briefly about Trump’s motion to dismiss Swalwell’s lawsuit against him. Spoiler: It’s lame.
11/ Trump argued that his speech was protected under the First Amendment (no surprise).
He also argued that Separation of Powers means that courts don’t have the authority to judge how he conducted his presidency— and “rousing speeches” were how he conducted his presidency.
12/ Yup, once again he gave his “Article II means I can do whatever I want” argument, combined with his “absolute immunity” defense, which the Supreme Court already rejected.
13/ Yes, very. His idea is that the constitution forbids a court from judging the head of a separate branch of government.
Except that the Constitution sets up lots of checks. That's why Congress can impeach and remove a president . . .
When @LindseyGrahamSC said the Republican Party "can't grow" without Trump, he meant without these folks Republicans can't win election, and Trump is best at stirring them up and keeping them engaged with politics.
After the Civil Rights movement, the white supremacists and corporate interests formed an alliance. What they had in common was a desire to dismantle the federal government.
Corporate interests wanted to roll back the New Deal and regulatory agencies. . .
I'm seeing people say they feel frustrated by the slow workings of politics.
Politics in a democracy is deliberative. The checks and balances intended to create stability also create a slow process. Panic doesn't help.
In an autocracy, things can move swiftly, or even instantly
Profs. Ziblatt and Levitsky say that democracy is "grinding" work.
The problem is that people who say (and actually want) democracy insist that democratic leaders are weak and ineffectual when they are engaging in the work of democracy.