4 ms·

> Another is that we have a very strong opposition. The Democratic Party is well organized, it’s well financed. It controls the most economically and culturally

> Another is that we have a very strong opposition. The Democratic Party is well organized, it’s well financed. It controls the most economically and culturally powerful regions of the country. So... the party that holds the presidency and both chambers of Congress is the "opposition?" That's an interesting take on things. Perhaps he means "opposition to authoritarianism," but the party of "I have a pen and a phone" and "We need to pass the bill to find what's in it" has it's own authoritarian tendencies. I'm NOT a fan of Trump, but the idea that this is a problem only with the Republicans is silly. So is the idea that the dissolving of "mutual toleration" mentioned in the article is a one way street. There are plenty of interviews like this one https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/ive-never-felt-this-sense-of-discrimination/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/ive-never-felt-this-s... that express how norms on the left have also changed pretty drastically over the past few years. The government has been in multiple law suits with a group of nuns, called the "Little Sisters of the Poor," all of whom are celibate and most of whom are elderly, trying to force them to buy health insurance that includes birth control. Maybe that group of nuns is misguided, but how does the left demonstrate mutual respect? How do situations like that demonstrate "restraint in using their institutional powers?"

FactolSarin 5y ago
Only one side is trying to undermine the electoral process itself. Don't forget that many Republicans voted against certifying election results. Sorry those nuns are upset about buying health insurance, but I pay for all kinds of things I don't want to pay for too. Having good faith debates about that kind of thing is part of democracy though, and in the end it's pretty minor. Showing restraint in institutional power means not using that power in an attempt to overturn an election just because you think you could legally get away with it.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Only one side is trying to undermine the electoral process itself. I'm no partisan Republican, but I don't think that's true. Creating seats until you gain control also undermines electoral process, and the "For the People Act" pushed DC statehood. That's a naked grab for two more safe Democratic Senate seats, especially when any concerns about the enfranchisement of DC residents could be solved with less of a partisan power-play (like letting Maryland annex most of DC). If you read liberal-leaning comment sections (e.g. like the NYT's), there's a lot more extreme fantasizing about creating new liberal states and abolishing or politically neutering conservative ones. I definitely think the Republicans have been "trying to undermine the electoral process itself" more blatantly, but the Democrats aren't saints either. And frankly, if the Republican threat to democracy is so dire, probably the best thing to save it is for the Democrats to shoot their progressive wing in the head and loudly run to the center, become competitive in conservative states, and focusing on routing the Republican party above other ideological goals.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    The Democrats are also talking about packing the Supreme Court, and about ending the filibuster so that they can get their agenda passed.
    - archagon 5y ago
      As if these initiatives were born in isolation, and not in response to a decade of obstructionist, blatantly hypocritical bullshit? What a whitewashed statement.
      - roenxi 5y ago
        In recent history they twice attempted to remove a sitting president. One of the votes could be considered a strong bipartisan rebuke of Trump because several Republicans (ie, low single digits) voted with the Democrats. The next election confirmed Trump had one of the largest support bases in history by number of votes and lost a fairly tight election to Biden (noting that US elections are determined by swing states, not absolute vote counts). There was at least a shade of un-democracy in those impeachments. The Democrats weren't implementing the will of the people there, it is pretty clear they were trying to implement the will of Democratic people and override the results that the system had come up with.
        tablespoon 5y ago
        > There was at least a shade of un-democracy in those impeachments. The Democrats weren't implementing the will of the people there, it is pretty clear they were trying to implement the will of Democratic people and override the results that the system had come up with. That's a bad read of the situation. While the impeachments did have a partisan aspect, they were also totally warranted from a non-partisan perspective, given Trump's actual behavior. Honestly, the more shamelessly partisan thing was how Republicans didn't go along with the impeachment, but rather gave Trump a full throated defense, just because he had an R next to his name (at the time).

FactolSarin 5y ago

Only one side is trying to undermine the electoral process itself. Don't forget that many Republicans voted against certifying election results. Sorry those nuns are upset about buying health insurance, but I pay for all kinds of things I don't want to pay for too. Having good faith debates about that kind of thing is part of democracy though, and in the end it's pretty minor. Showing restraint in institutional power means not using that power in an attempt to overturn an election just because you think you could legally get away with it.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Only one side is trying to undermine the electoral process itself. I'm no partisan Republican, but I don't think that's true. Creating seats until you gain control also undermines electoral process, and the "For the People Act" pushed DC statehood. That's a naked grab for two more safe Democratic Senate seats, especially when any concerns about the enfranchisement of DC residents could be solved with less of a partisan power-play (like letting Maryland annex most of DC). If you read liberal-leaning comment sections (e.g. like the NYT's), there's a lot more extreme fantasizing about creating new liberal states and abolishing or politically neutering conservative ones. I definitely think the Republicans have been "trying to undermine the electoral process itself" more blatantly, but the Democrats aren't saints either. And frankly, if the Republican threat to democracy is so dire, probably the best thing to save it is for the Democrats to shoot their progressive wing in the head and loudly run to the center, become competitive in conservative states, and focusing on routing the Republican party above other ideological goals.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  The Democrats are also talking about packing the Supreme Court, and about ending the filibuster so that they can get their agenda passed.
  - archagon 5y ago
    As if these initiatives were born in isolation, and not in response to a decade of obstructionist, blatantly hypocritical bullshit? What a whitewashed statement.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      In recent history they twice attempted to remove a sitting president. One of the votes could be considered a strong bipartisan rebuke of Trump because several Republicans (ie, low single digits) voted with the Democrats. The next election confirmed Trump had one of the largest support bases in history by number of votes and lost a fairly tight election to Biden (noting that US elections are determined by swing states, not absolute vote counts). There was at least a shade of un-democracy in those impeachments. The Democrats weren't implementing the will of the people there, it is pretty clear they were trying to implement the will of Democratic people and override the results that the system had come up with.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > There was at least a shade of un-democracy in those impeachments. The Democrats weren't implementing the will of the people there, it is pretty clear they were trying to implement the will of Democratic people and override the results that the system had come up with. That's a bad read of the situation. While the impeachments did have a partisan aspect, they were also totally warranted from a non-partisan perspective, given Trump's actual behavior. Honestly, the more shamelessly partisan thing was how Republicans didn't go along with the impeachment, but rather gave Trump a full throated defense, just because he had an R next to his name (at the time).