1/ I've read @imillhiser 's thread (advocating serious/extreme procedural measures) and this thread, and I am torn.
If @BrendanNyhan knew me, that should give him pause. I am as procedural and institutionalist a person as one is likely to find outside SCOTUS.
But I am torn.
If @BrendanNyhan knew me, that should give him pause. I am as procedural and institutionalist a person as one is likely to find outside SCOTUS.
But I am torn.
2/ Moreover, I've spent significant chunks of time in countries without entrenched norms of conduct. And I am torn.
Some of what @imillhiser suggests I favor without qualms. DC/PR statehood is right on the merits.
Some of what @imillhiser suggests I favor without qualms. DC/PR statehood is right on the merits.
3/ The filibuster should be nuked. Whatever the arguments for having a "break glass in case of emergency" filibuster, it is now just a requirement for a supermajority.
I favor abolishing it because I think it impedes democratic accountability.
I favor abolishing it because I think it impedes democratic accountability.
4/ With the filibuster in place, it's just too easy for people to say: it doesn't matter who gets elected; nothing happens anyways.
That's dangerous for our democracy.
That's dangerous for our democracy.
5/ About things like not confirming any of Trump's SCOTUS nominees: We are told (rightly) that forbearance is crucial to democracies. I agree. But it's one thing to talk about forbearance when you have some hope that the other side might reciprocate. Different when you don't.
6/ I am old enough to remember ™ when Barack Obama took office. He really tried to cooperate. Stimulus had tax cuts, bc he wanted bipartisan support. ACA is what it is bc it had been a GOP plan, and was moderate, so again, he hoped for bipartisan support.
7/ The result was slash-and-burn opposition. Everything filibustered. Unprecedented obstruction, with the explicit goal of making him a one term President. Constant challenges to his legitimacy.
Finally, Merrick Garland.
Finally, Merrick Garland.
8/ Forbearance doesn't work if only one side plays. I absolutely recognize the importance of meta-forbearance (being VERY cautious about concluding that the time for forbearance is over.)
But such a time must exist. What if you're trying to be cautious and still think: it's now?
But such a time must exist. What if you're trying to be cautious and still think: it's now?
9/ Compare this situation to the 2 parties and the deficits. For decades I've watched this dynamic play out: GOP pretends to care about deficits. When they take power, though, they let deficits explode, bc somehow military, tax cuts don't count.
10/ Dems come into office and put many of their own plans on hold in order to reduce the deficit. It goes down. Yay!
Then GOP comes into power and says: hey! We have room to play! and blows them up again.
Then GOP comes into power and says: hey! We have room to play! and blows them up again.
11/ At some point, even Dems who care a lot about deficits have to say: why should we go on enabling them? Why not run up deficits in order to advance *our* priorities, instead of cleaning up GOP messes?
I have no good answer to this.
I have no good answer to this.
12/ Because I do favor meta-forbearance, I think we should refuse to confirm any GOP SCOTUS nomination other than Merrick Garland.
Really. None at all. I think this strengthens democratic norms, by making it clear that crime does not pay.
Really. None at all. I think this strengthens democratic norms, by making it clear that crime does not pay.
13/ We should also deploy the filibuster as needed. If GOP wants to eliminate it, let them.
But Republicans really need to think about how this looks from our point of view. One-sided forbearance DOES NOT WORK. If they care about norms, they should enforce them.
But Republicans really need to think about how this looks from our point of view. One-sided forbearance DOES NOT WORK. If they care about norms, they should enforce them.
14/ One more thing: in @BrendanNyhan 's thread, he mentioned that this is also how things look to Republicans.
I know that. But those Republicans believe things that ARE NOT TRUE. It is incumbent on all of us, but especially on Republicans, to point this out.
I know that. But those Republicans believe things that ARE NOT TRUE. It is incumbent on all of us, but especially on Republicans, to point this out.
15/ It is not true that Democrats are trying to import gazillions of illegal immigrants in order to get them to vote fraudulently and win elections, for instance.
16/ More generally, if people in both parties think the other is resorting to procedural extremism, and members of one party think this because it's true, while members of the other think this because Alex Jones said so, that's not an argument for catering to 2nd group.
17/ If Republicans care about procedural norms, they should try to make it clear to their fellow Republicans that saying that those norms are being threatened is a very serious thing to say, something one should say only with VERY GOOD REASON.
18/ Tossing out charges of treason, criminal behavior, election theft, etc., themselves do harm to our Republic, IF those charges are not well founded.
If you care about our system of government, you should try to stop people who do this.
If you care about our system of government, you should try to stop people who do this.
19/ Even if you can't stop it, you should draw the line at rewarding it.
Fin.
Fin.
