I read all of Robert Caro a number of years ago. No better biography written.
So when I hear Portman, LaRose, Romney and others oppose the “federal takeover” of voting rights, I knew it sounded familiar.
1/
Indeed, that was the precise framing used by the Southern segregationists dedicated to stopping any and all civil rights legislation…but who knew they could no longer appeal to openly racist sentiments as their forerunners had
So they always grounded their obstruction…
2/
in the less charged narrative of a “federal takeover;” a takeover by outsiders; that the problems were already being solved within the states with no need for “federal interference.”
(And we know that those problems were NOT being solved)
3/
By eschewing the racist rhetoric of Southern predecessors, the “federal takeover” frame also made it easier for non-southern allies to join the cause of stopping civil rights legislation from passing.
It was a “vastly more effective” strategy.
4/
But as Caro points out, the impact was the same.
Those decades of obstruction rendered a cost on the Black citizens of the South in particular…a cost of “tears and plain and blood,” as even anti-lynching laws didn’t pass
5/
So as you hear “genteel” politicians of today throw around the term “federal takeover” as they oppose voting rights, but praise MLK, know that they are not only taking the 30s-60s segregationists’ side, they are adopting the most effective play from that segregation playbook
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Two sets of institutions— each central parts of the infrastructure of a functioning democracy—find themselves facing a similar dilemma.
Higher ed institutions, and law firms.
1/
In case people question the centrality of these institutions’ roles in our democracy, know that Trump and Vance fully understand:
That’s why Vance has declared universities and professors the enemy to what he and his allies seek to achieve.
2/
And it’s why Trump has declared war on some law firms—because he knows that, in our system of justice, robust representation of both sides (including the side holding the government or political figures accountable) is essential. Without that balance, the system collapses.
3/
Beyond the egregious security breach involved, the Signal scandal also puts on full display:
1) the appalling dishonesty of these people (lying with gusto even after incriminating evidence is out in the open);
1/
2) their sheer incompetence/arrogance (they essentially invited Goldberg to release the messages with all their trash talk and bald-faced lies);
3) the inability of most GOP legislators to call out anything—
2/
including something this egregious;
4) and the fact that Trump does not appear to be in charge of his own administration, or briefed on their actions, even when it involves the military
3/
I chatted with a PA Dem strategist who wears the opposite of rose-colored glasses about last night’s surprise upset in PA.
He was not involved in the race.
A few quotes:
1/
“[F]rom a ‘sign of the political winds,’ the victory last night was significant for several reasons: first, turnout was quite high for a random March date.
Second, this turf has been Republican since the Civil War…”
2/
“….it does NOT include the city of Lancaster (which is quite blue)—that’s different than some of these “Obama-Trump” regions that may be inclined to switch back — there’s no legacy of Democratic victories in this part of Lancaster County.”
3/
Another day, another institution caves to the threats and shakedowns of Donald Trump.
And the pattern is clear: the more powerful institutions are, the more likely they are to comply.
1/
My law school classmate and friend @DavidLat shared on his substack an email from the chairman of the firm Paul Weiss (Brad Karp), where he described the situation the firm faced:
2/
“Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients…
3/