1/ If you haven’t noticed, Republicans have been engaging in hardball tactics.
I'm being ironic. Of course, you noticed.
Constitutional Hardball tactics are technically within the rules, but shocking, norm-breaking, and destructive. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
2/ Hardball tactics are carried out within the law, but subvert the spirit of the law.
Example: McConnell refusing to allow Obama to appoint a Supreme Court justice.
3/ Here, Harvard prof. Steven Levitsky explains that the Republicans are engaging in hardball tactics because they feel their backs are to the wall and they're desperate.
Their numbers are shrinking. Their future prospects look bleak.
4/ See the problem? (Stats from Levitsky). He says "White Christians" because evangelicals form a crucial part of the Republican coalition.
Because future looks bleak for a white male party, they’re willing to torpedo the system which they think no longer works for them
5/ In this lecture, Levitsky says we’re in a political earthquake, undergoing a transition from a white Christian (male) dominated America—which was decidedly undemocratic for women and minority communities—to a true liberal democracy.
6/ The transition from white dominance to a multi-racial democracy is NOT an easy transition to make.
Levitsky says making the transition requires passing through a period of intense polarizing reaction.
He says what we're going through is a political "earthquake."
7/ In an earthquake, you don’t put stress on already weak structures.
You rush to strengthen them.
Democrats have excellent future prospects. Demographic changes benefit the Democrats. Plus Democrats tend to be younger.
8/ If both sides engage in hardball tactics, this will put more stress on the institutions and they are more likely to collapse.
This does NOT mean Democrats must be passive or patient.
This is where Pozen’s anti-hardball reform comes in.
9/ Also someone has to take the high road.
If both sides engage in destructive tactics, the "both sides are the same" propaganda tactic becomes true. Voters won't be able to see the difference between the two parties.
10/ From Prof. Pozen: Anti-hardball tactics “forestall or foreclose tit-for-tat cycles and lower the temperature. . .”
Another definition: Good government rules that both sides would adopt if they didn’t know the underlying partisan dispute. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
11/ An anti-hardball reform solution: Respond to GOP voter suppression and purges by mobilizing volunteers to drive people to polls and help people re-register.
(I do NOT consider getting rid of the filibuster to be hardball. The filibuster itself is constitutional hardball.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Is it too late to save democracy?”
“Will the fascists win?”
I answered these questions by talking about Susan B. Anthony.
(Talking for 10 minutes to my Ipad is feeling less weird each week)
Subtitle: Everything you never knew you wanted to know about Susan B. Anthony
If you prefer an [edited] transcript, it’s here: terikanefield.com/susan-b-anthon…
I’ll come back and do a brief Twitter summary.
But first, more ☕️
2/
I think we start with the fact that there will always be people trying to undermine democracy, and they are motivated and acting from fear and desperation.
Then, when they land a blow, instead of reeling with shock, we figure out how to respond.
See:
Just a friendly reminder that if the people who abused power are not held "accountable," it's because they are being shielded by a major political party that holds a lot of power.
You can't say Schiff and Swalwell haven't been doing their best.
Underestimating how entrenched the anti-democratic forces are? Unreasonable expectations? Thinking change can be swift?
Think about what would be happening right now if Trump was in the White House and compare.
In this fabulous lecture, Harvard prof. Steven Levitsky explains that the Republicans are engaging in hardball tactics because they feel their backs are to the wall and they're desperate.
If this is the kind of thing I've been saying, it's because I've been reading Levitsky's work for years. He writes about democracies in Latin America, democratic erosion, and competitive authoritarianism. He's also a co-author of 👇
1/
Also, 👇
His point: For most of the 20th century, American politics "worked."
That’s because through the 1970s, both parties culturally and demographically similar.
Specifically, they were white. White men controlled all major American institutions.
2/
The legal question is whether Trump made the statement in the scope of his employment
1/
In other words, this case isn't about the rape itself (except that truth is a defense to libel)
I suspect that the issue will be appealed, and the appellate court will decide whether it agrees that the defamatory statements were uttered in the scope of Trump's employment.
2/