The latest attacks are in the Calfornia recall with a chorus of voices, including TFG, insisting that if Newsom wins, it will be because the election was rigged (CA went for Biden 63.5% to Trump 34.3)
The problem: A swatch of angry and militant Californians think it’s true.
3/
It may seem like I'm detouring on Nerdy🤓 Road, but ti answer, we need Max Weber's 3 sources of authority for government and "Competitive Authoritarianism" (Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way).
I also rely on political psychologists who teach us about the authoritarian personality.
Here's the spoiler: As long as you have a democracy, you will have people trying to undermine the democracy.
People ask “What can we do?” Actually, there are things we need to do.
5/
Weber in his classic essay explains that there are three sources of authority for government. archive.org/details/weber_……
Monarchy has obvious disadvantages but the advantage is stability: You always know who the ruler is and you (generally) know who the next ruler will be.
6/
Fascism didn't appear on the world stage until after the old monarchies and empires broke down because a demagogue can only gain authority in a democracy.
They often come to power through legal means (elections) then figure out how to stay in power.
7/
Here's the thing about democracy: A lot of people don't really like it. It's slow-moving, frustrating, and strives for inclusiveness.
I often say "Democracy will survive if enough people want it to," and everyone thinks I'm an optimist. But there's an "if" in that sentence.
8/
Democracy strives for fairness but can never be completely fair.
Because there is always pushback, rule of law is very very slow and cumbersome, and because the institutions of democracy consist of mere mortals.
So people who want fairness get frustrated.
9/
Another problem: all those checks and balances (spreading power around to make it harder for a dictator to take power) also make it harder to get anything done.
People get frustrated. They get cynical and this kills democracy by undermining confidence in the institutions.
10/
Then there is the "authoritarian personality" as defined by political scientists -- people who will never feel comfortable in a liberal democracy, because democracy strives for inclusion and they want sameness and order.
This makes up about a third of the population.
11/
This third rejects inclusivity. They prefer to fall in line behind a strong leader.
That's just the way they are. They will constantly regroup and attack.
They are not going away. They'll keep attacking.
So what do we do?
12/
We work on strengthening our democratic institutions to withstand attack and get us out if they "win."
I'll give a 20th-century example (Chile) and then explain what's more likely to happen in 21 century America (this is where competitive authoritarianism comes in.)
13/
Here's what happened in Chile.
(Screenshot so the thread doesn't get too long).
Notice the part about having a tradition of functioning democratic institutions.
Nowadays, a sudden coup where you go to sleep in a democracy and wake up in a dictatorship is rare.
14/
Generally, in the 21st century, the move is gradual as democratic institutions break down and slide into "competitive authoritarianism."
#1: A definition of competitive authoritarianism.
#2: How to get out of a competitive authoritarian regime and back to democracy.
15/
When I say "democratic institutions," I mean what the authors call "arenas."
So the main thing we do, to withstand attack and make it possible to get out, should they 'win' is to strengthen our institutions.
The problem with social media is all-or-nothing thinking, the idea that there are only absolutes.
This leads to statements like "If X doesn't happen, rule of law is dead."
17/
Rule of law is the authority underlying the government. If that's dead, you have a dictatorship.
Really what "If X doesn't happen . . ." reflects is annoyance with the imperfections of rule of law.
It IS imperfect. And frustrating.
But learn to love (and defend) it.
18/
I think it's like the great truth that life is difficult. If we accept the truth, we stop whining about it and expecting life to be easy and we get to work.
. . . for government actions that are (1) needed to protect public health and are (2) reasonable and limited in scope.
He said a school district’s decision to require student masking to prevent the spread of the virus falls within that exemption.
2/
I can't imagine such a debate. If Trump wants the nomination (and is in a position to be the nominee -- I am skeptical) I suspect everyone will step back.
Speaking of women as "host bodies" (we were speaking about that, weren't we?) this is from a 1908 Supreme Cort case on why legislatures were justified in passing laws that "protected" women.
In fact, I'm stumbling on these because I'm reading my Ruth Bader Ginsburg book aloud for my YouTube channel. I'm up to chapter 9, but I haven't gotten around to posting them yet.
This one stands alone if you're interested in the history of women's legal rights without all personal RBG story.
Women's legal status was a bit shocking in the 19th century.
I'll thread some highlights. Not much time now, but I'll add to it later.
1/
When Myra Bradwell tried to become a lawyer in the 1870s, she passed the Illinois bar, but the United States Supreme Court upheld the Illinois decision to refuse to allow her to practice law because (basically) a woman belongs in the home.
This is from the Supreme Court:
2/
When Virginia Minor tried to vote in 1872, she (like others) argued that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to all persons, she was a person, the law preventing her from voting denied her equal protection of the law, therefore, she should be able to vote.
3/