One thing that has bugged me about the debate over the filibuster is the tendency of the discourse to get mired in abstractions about majorities vs. minorities, and what the right level of protection is for minorities. This has marked US procedural arguments for decades, but ...
... it's worth noting that, for all those decades, the only minority whose rule is being defended is conservative patriarchal white Christian men & their wives -- ahem, "real Americans." That's always the minority with the "right" to influence beyond its numbers.
You better believe every RW reply guy who burps up "republic not a democracy" in response to procedural arguments would change his tune in a heartbeat if it were any other minority dominating national politics. If Dems could run the Senate with 45% of the nat'l population? Shit.
This is the truth behind all these procedural disputes ("states' rights," "originalism," the filibuster): the arguments are retrofit from the prime directive that the right-wing coalition must remain in charge. Procedural commitments morph & bend as necessary. It's all bad faith.
Cucker Tarlson more or less says this out loud these days -- it's what the "great replacement" theory is all about. It's core to the RW worldview that Dems are using immigration to outnumber legitimate (white) Americans with illegitimate ones, counterfeits.
The raison d'être of the RW coalition -- the core goal that unites all its factions -- is for real Americans to retain control of "their" country. All other values & procedural commitments, including democracy itself, are subordinate.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
