Beyond that, I answered questions and addressed comments. One was this comment ⤵️.
This video combined with the one I did called "When will these attacks on American democracy end" try to respond to two unrealistic ideas."
The first . . .
5/
. .. the first is that with one stroke, democracy in the United States can be shattered, leaving us with something else.
The second (related) goes like this: "If X doesn't happen, democracy will not survive" or "If X doesn't happen, rule of law will be meaningless."
6/
People on Twitter like "what if" scenarios.
"What if the Supreme Court agreed with Eastman?"
One follower summed it up like this: "If the Supreme Court agreed with Eastman, you wouldn't need to Supreme Court anymore."
Why would the Supreme Court create a dictator?
7/
From a purely cynical point of view, right now they have a lot of power. If they created a dictator, they'd have to be afraid of the whim of a "president" who could weaponize the Department of Justice and law enforcement and do whatever he wanted.
8/
I went off-topic :) This is not in my video.
But I do address (in a roundabout why) why really scary "what if" scenarios and statements like "If we don't punish them all harshly democracy will die" are not helpful.
We need to address the actual threat in realistic ways.
9/
This was in response to my question, "Why would the Supreme Court create a dictator?"
If the courts wanted to create a dictator, they could have sided with him in all those lawsuits.
Even Trump-appointed judges ruled against Trump.
10/
This is from the blog post and video:
The right-wing extremism we're seeing is a reaction to the civil rights and women's rights movements.
Before 1954, America had functioning democratic institutions, but they protected White men only.
Since then. . .
11/
. . . we have been trying to transition from a democracy in which democratic institutions protect White men only to a democracy in which they protect all people.
Democrats want that to happen.
Republicans don't. Some like John Eastman, Giuliani, and others . . .
12/
. . . are willing to blow up democratic institutions altogether to prevent America from transitioning to a fully functioning multi-racial democracy.
Others like Pence and McConnell, don't want to destroy democratic institutions altogether, they want to return . . .
13/
. . . to the time when democratic institutions protected White men only.
This is reactionary. Go back to the good old days. MAGA = reactionist politics.
Why are they so afraid of a multi-racial democracy?
14/
Tucker Carlson explains it well: They are afraid of being "replaced."
They'll attack again.
The way to prevent a successful coup is to strengthen our democratic institutions so that they can also withstand the next attack.
15/
He refused to go along with the plan.
I think the way to understand Pence is that he wants to go back to the days when White men ruled, but he doesn't want to blow up democracy altogether.
He's cool with a return to 1850, but not a Trump dictatorship.
But I have noticed that many reach a line they can't cross. Others, like Giuliani and Eastman, have no line.
17/
While this isn't in the video (but I've talked about it elsewhere) all of this dovetails with @HC_Richardson economic history: They want to go back to the time when businesses were unregulated.
This is already long, but I think I'll make myself unpopular by dissecting this comment someone sent me.
🔹A person who says "there need to be consequences" is using language in a very imprecise manner. There HAVE been consequences. Trump lost the election . . .
19/
. . . and was ousted from power, he is facing multiple lawsuits and investigations in various states.
I suggest that the person who says "there need to be consequences" has a particular consequence in mind. Be specific. Say it. "If X doesn't happen, we will lose."
20/
🔹"consequences are a result of well-working institutions. If there are no consequences, the institutions are not working as intended."
Institutions never work perfectly. They can't. First, they are made up of human beings. Second, there is constant pushback.
21/
Democracy is messy and imperfect. Democratic institutions are messy and imperfect.
"My way or the highway" is not democracy, it's autocracy.
Someone else told me that if all the instigators of the insurrection are not punished, people will lose 'faith' in democracy.
22/
"If X doesn't happen, I will lose faith in democracy" isn't much different from, "my way or the highway." Right?
Democracy isn't a fancy thing that someone else does.
Democracy is literally "rule by the people," and we are the people.
23/
Democracy is frustrating and slow-moving and imperfect, but there are not many alternatives.
Some people embrace autocracy because they don't have the patience for democracy.
An autocrat (strongman) promises to blow through the red tape and Get Things Done Now.
24/
I have a tab on my website with ideas for defending democracy.
It's called "things to do."
People who tell me ⤵️ rarely explain HOW this can be done.
Remember how ugly it was when people chanted "lock her up"? Don't be like that.
Rule of law has procedures.
25/
I do appreciate comments and questions, but please either read my blog post or listen to the video first.
Thanks :)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Scholar Hungarian scholar Balint Magyar offers a theory that explains why the US held out against the same tactics that caused other countries to collapse into autocracy.
His theory also explains why comparisons across nations don’t always work.
A key error here is that it assumes that the Electoral Count Act is illegal and assumes that states can set aside the laws they have on the books for allocating their electors.
In fact, rules governing the election have to be in place before the election.
The idea was to create chaos and give Trump's claim that he won the election more legitimacy.
He still wouldn't have stayed in the White House because this wouldn't have worked -- but it may have persuaded more people that Biden didn't win, which undermines the government.
By the way, some of left-leaning Twitter has a weird* idea of criminal law and the justice system. They want justice to be swift and brutal.
The problem: That can backfire. Right?
*authoritarian
2/
For someone to be prosecuted, there has to be a specific statute on the books, and the prosecutor has to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a high standard.
One question is whether Trump has violated Georgia Code § 21-2-604.
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/