Are you preparing for the next U.S. civil war and autocratic rule?

[LaineyAZ]

Related to this, there's a great interview with David Pepper who wrote the book "Laboratories of Autocracy: A Wake-Up Call from Behind the Lines."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/how-the-states-have-become-laboratories-of-autocracy-and-why-it-s-worse-than-you-think/ar-AASOQH5?ocid=msedgntp

The title of the article is "How the States Have Become Laboratories of Autocracy and Why It's Worse than You Think."   Describing how people underestimate the power of legislators and governors in states like Ohio (where Pepper lives), Georgia and Arizona to obstruct the will of the majority.  How easy and effectively the unnamed legislators have been able to divert power, money and resources to private actors.  And how they can and have changed laws regarding elections.

Thus, another January 6th could happen but this time quietly, behind the scenes, if several dozen of these same unprincipled people hold key positions of power.

[Abe]

Related to this, there's a great interview with David Pepper who wrote the book "Laboratories of Autocracy: A Wake-Up Call from Behind the Lines."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/how-the-states-have-become-laboratories-of-autocracy-and-why-it-s-worse-than-you-think/ar-AASOQH5?ocid=msedgntp

The title of the article is "How the States Have Become Laboratories of Autocracy and Why It's Worse than You Think."   Describing how people underestimate the power of legislators and governors in states like Ohio (where Pepper lives), Georgia and Arizona to obstruct the will of the majority.  How easy and effectively the unnamed legislators have been able to divert power, money and resources to private actors.  And how they can and have changed laws regarding elections.

Thus, another January 6th could happen but this time quietly, behind the scenes, if several dozen of these same unprincipled people hold key positions of power.

I have always been skeptical of the states’ rights excuse as a way for policies that are unpopular at a national level to be shoved through at a state level. Especially in states that somehow define the state level to be the be-all of power that should not be subject to the whims of the federal government (only their largess) and yet prevent localities from creating their own rules. It is a purely hypocritical power grab. Yet their supporters want to lecture us on how governments should stay out of peoples’ business while simultaneously trying to run their business.

I agree the nation as a whole is too fractured for autocracy at the federal level, but ripe for it at a state level (especially in the South, which has a long rich tradition of autocracy).

[ysette9]

As someone in a blue state part of me thinks I will be ok if I just stay in my bubble and never let my kids travel out of it. Let those fools differ the consequences of their decisions.

Except the people who suffer aren’t those in power and those responsible for gerrymandering and lobbying and moving the country backwards are doing so at the expense of the little people for their own gain. So we can armchair talk about Balkan fracturing or secession or states rights and that makes sense in theory, but what about all the people who can’t afford to move to a state that has basic human rights? It just seems so fundamentally unjust and cowardly to let that happen. 

[maizefolk]

Except the people who suffer aren’t those in power and those responsible for gerrymandering and lobbying and moving the country backwards are doing so at the expense of the little people for their own gain. So we can armchair talk about Balkan fracturing or secession or states rights and that makes sense in theory, but what about all the people who can’t afford to move to a state that has basic human rights? It just seems so fundamentally unjust and cowardly to let that happen.

Let me play devil's advocate here, not because I want to argue with you but just because it's an interesting moral question:

In a hypothetical world where it really was a balkan fracturing or completely separate things happening in different states, would that be different from the vast number of infringements upon human rights that happen in countries outside the USA every day?

If there is an ethical obligation to intervene to help people in Texas*, does that mean there is also an ethical obligation to intervene to help people in Iran or Egypt? Why or why not? And if not, that that mean no to both, or yes to both?

*That doesn't derive from a fear that what starts in Texas will ultimately spread to the entire country.

[GodlessCommie]

It just seems so fundamentally unjust and cowardly to let that happen.

It is. And here is the great power imbalance: the left is mostly afraid of a civil war; while (at least some sections of) the right itch for a civil war, stocks up on firearms and ammo, and trains in the use of it.

[ysette9]

Except the people who suffer aren’t those in power and those responsible for gerrymandering and lobbying and moving the country backwards are doing so at the expense of the little people for their own gain. So we can armchair talk about Balkan fracturing or secession or states rights and that makes sense in theory, but what about all the people who can’t afford to move to a state that has basic human rights? It just seems so fundamentally unjust and cowardly to let that happen.

Let me play devil's advocate here, not because I want to argue with you but just because it's an interesting moral question:

In a hypothetical world where it really was a balkan fracturing or completely separate things happening in different states, would that be different from the vast number of infringements upon human rights that happen in countries outside the USA every day?

If there is an ethical obligation to intervene to help people in Texas*, does that mean there is also an ethical obligation to intervene to help people in Iran or Egypt? Why or why not? And if not, that that mean no to both, or yes to both?

*That doesn't derive from a fear that what starts in Texas will ultimately spread to the entire country.

You bring up an excellent point and ethically there is no distinguishing. It’s not like women’s rights in Texas are more important than those in Afghanistan or the Middle East. But my feeling of ability to slightly influence the outcome of one is stronger than the other, if you know what I am saying.

Thinking about these things is chilling to me. Back when I was in HS before daddy Bush’s wars we used to get these email forwards about the plight of women and girls in Afghanistan under the Taliban. It is crushing to think it has returned to that. “There but for thé grâce of god go I” and all of that, except no god, just luck of birth.

I’ve been able to lead a pretty awesome life. If I had been born in much of the rest of the world or even large swaths of the US that would not have been the case, speaking with people (often MMM forum-ites) from other states. I can’t do shit about the awful political situations in Saudia Arabia as an example, but if I had the chance to vote for keeping the US together to have humane laws extend across all states instead of breaking off and preserving my good way of life while others flounder, I’ll vote.

[maizefolk]

You bring up an excellent point and ethically there is no distinguishing. It’s not like women’s rights in Texas are more important than those in Afghanistan or the Middle East. But my feeling of ability to slightly influence the outcome of one is stronger than the other, if you know what I am saying.

I think that's an excellent (and pragmatic) answer.

[PDXTabs]

You bring up an excellent point and ethically there is no distinguishing. It’s not like women’s rights in Texas are more important than those in Afghanistan or the Middle East. But my feeling of ability to slightly influence the outcome of one is stronger than the other, if you know what I am saying.

But that's a double edged sword, right? If the country is at a stalemate then both sides can't implement the policies that they care about. If, in some hypothetical sense, we let the red states form one country and the blue states form a different country then the blue voters left in the blue country would be free to actually implement all the policies that they cared about.

[ysette9]

True. And I could also get the policies I care about tomorrow by packing up and moving to another country. That is still work but a lot easier than forming a new blue country. :)

Who knows, maybe separating is the answer? In theory we stayed together after the civil war but in practice the south was a backwards autocratic state that trampled on human rights for generations. They are still behind the curve today as a result of those failed policies, though the general public tends not to recognize that. Was that worth the blood and tears to keep the union together in name? I dunno.

[maizefolk]

And the civil war ended legal slavery for millions of people. People can argue back and forth all day about how big or little a role that playing in the motivation of either the south to succeed or the north to go to war rather than let them go. But it is inarguable that it was the end result.

The share cropping and jim crow that came afterwards wasn't good, but it was definitely a step forward on the long moral arc of the universe towards justice, not a step backwards or sideways.

[ysette9]

Yes, it ended slavery. On paper. I think people like myself with little history education assume that slavery abolished = all is good now. Except then you learn a little more and realize that black participation in elections, for example, was practically zero until the 1960s.

[maizefolk]

Yes, it ended slavery. On paper. I think people like myself with little history education assume that slavery abolished = all is good now. Except then you learn a little more and realize that black participation in elections, for example, was practically zero until the 1960s.

That's a fair criticism. But it's equally dangerous to over compensate and leap to the opposite extreme and assume that nothing changed for the better for black americans between the 1700s and the civil rights era.

The big sea change in black voter participation in elections was the 1964 election when turnout was about 60% for 12M votes, 17% of the total votes cast at a time when ~11% of the overall US population (e.g. not just register voters) was black. Prior to that turnout was more on the order of 5M voters (25% turnout) and about 6.5% of all votes cast. Which is dishearteningly low, but not practically zero.

It is also clear that the preferences of black voters even in the era where they were only half as likely to be able to successfully vote as white voters where already having substantial impacts on the political positions presidential candidates chose to adopt to not adopt in the 1950s. This piece is worth a read for a window into the political mindsets of that era (although I should warn it uses language common to that era that would be totally unacceptable in newspaper/magazine reporting today). Prior to the passage of the civil rights acts the big way ending slavery increased the political power of black americans wasn't through voting in southern states but making it legal and practical for people to move from southern states to northern ones where they could and did vote in large numbers.

[Paul der Krake]

You bring up an excellent point and ethically there is no distinguishing. It’s not like women’s rights in Texas are more important than those in Afghanistan or the Middle East. But my feeling of ability to slightly influence the outcome of one is stronger than the other, if you know what I am saying.

I think that's an excellent (and pragmatic) answer.

Counterpoint: if there's something Americans of all stripes absolutely, most definitely, viscerally, hate, it's people from out of state pointing out their problems telling them how to do things.

It's very easy to think you're helping by "raising awareness" or "entering the conversation" but in reality you're just doing political hobbyism and not changing anyone's mind. In fact, you're likely making it worse by being insufferable to the very people whose mind you're failing to change.

[maizefolk]

I think we may be talking about somewhat different things. I agree the stereotypes and mockery of people living in some states is extremely counter productive. Particularly since folks tend to paint folks living in Madison or Austin with the same broad brush. I’ve never come to close to saying “fuck it I’m voting for trump” as I did after reading a bunch of snide commenters on a Washington post article make jokes about the people in Iowa City (a liberal college town) left without power for weeks by a derecho.

I took the point to be that so long as the USA remains a single country it is easier to change circumstances throughout all the states (which typically requires legislation) than it is to change people’s situations in different countries (which typically would require armed invasion).

[PDXTabs]

I have always been skeptical of the states’ rights excuse as a way for policies that are unpopular at a national level to be shoved through at a state level.

I've always been skeptical of our two political parties who will trot out States Rights as justification for something that they want to do and then cry foul when the other party tries. But I guess that's what you get for having the 10th Amendment and the commerce clause in the same document.

[GodlessCommie]

Counterpoint: if there's something Americans of all stripes absolutely, most definitely, viscerally, hate, it's people from out of state pointing out their problems telling them how to do things.

While this is true, it is only a part of the picture. Our politics is getting more and more national. While someone absolutely, viscerally hates people from out of state pointing out their problems, she or he doesn't hate people from out of state at all if they are on their side. Heck, even help from abroad was accepted with gratitude by one of the parties.

So you can be absolutely sure that crossing a state line to help with turnout (talking exclusively to people of your party) will be well-received. You can also take part in nominally non-partisan activities, like registration drives. You can donate money, it rarely if ever backfires. If you are concerned that out-of state money will look bad for a candidate, donate to a PAC. You can phonebank - all phonebanks call from local numbers.

So yes, it is absolutely possible to help with out-of-state issues. Just think beyond posting on social media, which doesn't really count as involvement anyway.

[RetiredAt63]

Just a thought after seeing it mentioned - when was the last time there was a constitutional amendment?  It was obviously planned by your Founding Fathers that the constitution would be a living document that could change with the times, since there is the ability to have a constitutional amendment.  As an outsider, part of the underlying issues seems to be that the present political process is frozen.

I am also saying this because for the longest time we had to get approval from the British Parliament to make changes in our constitution.   :-(   Of course they rubber stamped it, but still . . .  not great.  And our present means of amendment is almost impossible in practice.  50 states is a huge number to deal with, we have enough problems re amending the constitution with 10 provinces and 3 territories. 

[Michael in ABQ]

Just a thought after seeing it mentioned - when was the last time there was a constitutional amendment?  It was obviously planned by your Founding Fathers that the constitution would be a living document that could change with the times, since there is the ability to have a constitutional amendment.  As an outsider, part of the underlying issues seems to be that the present political process is frozen.

I am also saying this because for the longest time we had to get approval from the British Parliament to make changes in our constitution.   :-(   Of course they rubber stamped it, but still . . .  not great.  And our present means of amendment is almost impossible in practice.  50 states is a huge number to deal with, we have enough problems re amending the constitution with 10 provinces and 3 territories.

The 27th Amendment passed in 1992 - it only took 202 years. That basically said that Congress can't give themselves a pay raise in the current session. Prior to that the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age to 18 passed in 1971 and only took a few months to be ratified. 2/3 of states have to ratify any amendment, so 38 of 50. That's obviously a pretty high bar for anything controversial which is why no amendments have passed in 30 years.

Of course, our political system was designed to move slowly and have lots of checks and balances. So you could say it's a feature, not a bug.

[Paul der Krake]

Counterpoint: if there's something Americans of all stripes absolutely, most definitely, viscerally, hate, it's people from out of state pointing out their problems telling them how to do things.

While this is true, it is only a part of the picture. Our politics is getting more and more national. While someone absolutely, viscerally hates people from out of state pointing out their problems, she or he doesn't hate people from out of state at all if they are on their side. Heck, even help from abroad was accepted with gratitude by one of the parties.

So you can be absolutely sure that crossing a state line to help with turnout (talking exclusively to people of your party) will be well-received. You can also take part in nominally non-partisan activities, like registration drives. You can donate money, it rarely if ever backfires. If you are concerned that out-of state money will look bad for a candidate, donate to a PAC. You can phonebank - all phonebanks call from local numbers.

So yes, it is absolutely possible to help with out-of-state issues. Just think beyond posting on social media, which doesn't really count as involvement anyway.

I think everything you've listed counts as "doing real politics", and is, on the net, a positive thing. I have my doubts on contributing money to far away candidates, but that's still much better than arguing in 20-page threads in Off-Topic.

[PDXTabs]

But if you actually believe in democracy, what's so bad about a unicameral parliamentary democracy?

I didn't say anything was so bad about a unicameral parliamentary democracy. I said that that it is a system of government that can and does effect bigger faster structural changes than the american democratic system.

Whether that's good or bad depends on 1) whether you think there is value to stability for its own sake (I think there is some value but not a vast amount) and 2) whether you think the types of changes the types politicians your fellow citizens tend to elect would be mostly for the better or mostly for the worse.

Lots of Parliamentary systems are bicameral, not unicameral.  We are, the UK is, Australia is.  Our Senate is supposed to be the house of sober second thought, a job it does very poorly these days.

I will be up front that this is where my graph of political science/political theory breaks down a bit. My understanding of the house of lords is that it's essentially a vestigial body at this point. Is your view that it still holds political power? If so I'll defer to you as having more expertise in this area as a citizen of the british commonwealth.

It is certainly true that there are bicameral parliamentary systems out there, but my go-to example would probably Italy where the PM requires the support of both houses and either can hold a vote of no confidence. It's not really clear to me what the benefit of this system is, but the Italians clearly like it having rejected a proposal to reduce the power of their upper house in a way that would have brought their system more in line with the systems used by various british common wealth members only five years ago by a margin of nearly 20% which seems pretty decisive.

The House of Lords isn't vestigial.  It doesn't do finance and won't bring down a government or vote out major legislation.  But it is effective in scrutinising government proposals and getting them changed if they don't make sense - because of the rather odd nature of appointments to the Lords and little government control over who turns up on any particular day the government can't push through a vote against the feeling of the House in the same way as it can in the Commons, but has to rely on winning the argument instead.

They just did this.

[stoaX]

Just a thought after seeing it mentioned - when was the last time there was a constitutional amendment?  It was obviously planned by your Founding Fathers that the constitution would be a living document that could change with the times, since there is the ability to have a constitutional amendment.  As an outsider, part of the underlying issues seems to be that the present political process is frozen.

I am also saying this because for the longest time we had to get approval from the British Parliament to make changes in our constitution.   :-(   Of course they rubber stamped it, but still . . .  not great.  And our present means of amendment is almost impossible in practice.  50 states is a huge number to deal with, we have enough problems re amending the constitution with 10 provinces and 3 territories.

The 27th Amendment passed in 1992 - it only took 202 years. That basically said that Congress can't give themselves a pay raise in the current session. Prior to that the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age to 18 passed in 1971 and only took a few months to be ratified. 2/3 of states have to ratify any amendment, so 38 of 50. That's obviously a pretty high bar for anything controversial which is why no amendments have passed in 30 years.

Of course, our political system was designed to move slowly and have lots of checks and balances. So you could say it's a feature, not a bug.

Also, while a constitutional amendment might definitively settle an issue (like abortion), it might not be in the interests of either the Democrats or the Republicans.  If the problem is fixed, it's harder to use it as a wedge issue to raise money.  Or am I too cynical?

[Travis]

Just a thought after seeing it mentioned - when was the last time there was a constitutional amendment?  It was obviously planned by your Founding Fathers that the constitution would be a living document that could change with the times, since there is the ability to have a constitutional amendment.  As an outsider, part of the underlying issues seems to be that the present political process is frozen.

I am also saying this because for the longest time we had to get approval from the British Parliament to make changes in our constitution.   :-(   Of course they rubber stamped it, but still . . .  not great.  And our present means of amendment is almost impossible in practice.  50 states is a huge number to deal with, we have enough problems re amending the constitution with 10 provinces and 3 territories.

The 27th Amendment passed in 1992 - it only took 202 years. That basically said that Congress can't give themselves a pay raise in the current session. Prior to that the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age to 18 passed in 1971 and only took a few months to be ratified. 2/3 of states have to ratify any amendment, so 38 of 50. That's obviously a pretty high bar for anything controversial which is why no amendments have passed in 30 years.

Of course, our political system was designed to move slowly and have lots of checks and balances. So you could say it's a feature, not a bug.

Also, while a constitutional amendment might definitively settle an issue (like abortion), it might not be in the interests of either the Democrats or the Republicans.  If the problem is fixed, it's harder to use it as a wedge issue to raise money.  Or am I too cynical?

I've always wondered what would happen if Roe v Wade was overturned. The Republicans would no longer have one of their few consistent election arguments.

[Kris]

Just a thought after seeing it mentioned - when was the last time there was a constitutional amendment?  It was obviously planned by your Founding Fathers that the constitution would be a living document that could change with the times, since there is the ability to have a constitutional amendment.  As an outsider, part of the underlying issues seems to be that the present political process is frozen.

I am also saying this because for the longest time we had to get approval from the British Parliament to make changes in our constitution.   :-(   Of course they rubber stamped it, but still . . .  not great.  And our present means of amendment is almost impossible in practice.  50 states is a huge number to deal with, we have enough problems re amending the constitution with 10 provinces and 3 territories.

The 27th Amendment passed in 1992 - it only took 202 years. That basically said that Congress can't give themselves a pay raise in the current session. Prior to that the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age to 18 passed in 1971 and only took a few months to be ratified. 2/3 of states have to ratify any amendment, so 38 of 50. That's obviously a pretty high bar for anything controversial which is why no amendments have passed in 30 years.

Of course, our political system was designed to move slowly and have lots of checks and balances. So you could say it's a feature, not a bug.

Also, while a constitutional amendment might definitively settle an issue (like abortion), it might not be in the interests of either the Democrats or the Republicans.  If the problem is fixed, it's harder to use it as a wedge issue to raise money.  Or am I too cynical?

I've always wondered what would happen if Roe v Wade was overturned. The Republicans would no longer have one of their few consistent election arguments.

The abortion wedge was dreamt up by the opportunistic cynics in the party. Unfortunately for them, they have played to the ignorant for long enough that a chunk of their offices have been taken over by the true believers. So they will overturn Roe.

What will happen? Trans people going to the bathroom and CRT. The party manufactures wedge issues because that is all it has.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Just a thought after seeing it mentioned - when was the last time there was a constitutional amendment?  It was obviously planned by your Founding Fathers that the constitution would be a living document that could change with the times, since there is the ability to have a constitutional amendment.  As an outsider, part of the underlying issues seems to be that the present political process is frozen.

I am also saying this because for the longest time we had to get approval from the British Parliament to make changes in our constitution.   :-(   Of course they rubber stamped it, but still . . .  not great.  And our present means of amendment is almost impossible in practice.  50 states is a huge number to deal with, we have enough problems re amending the constitution with 10 provinces and 3 territories.

The 27th Amendment passed in 1992 - it only took 202 years. That basically said that Congress can't give themselves a pay raise in the current session. Prior to that the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age to 18 passed in 1971 and only took a few months to be ratified. 2/3 of states have to ratify any amendment, so 38 of 50. That's obviously a pretty high bar for anything controversial which is why no amendments have passed in 30 years.

Of course, our political system was designed to move slowly and have lots of checks and balances. So you could say it's a feature, not a bug.

Also, while a constitutional amendment might definitively settle an issue (like abortion), it might not be in the interests of either the Democrats or the Republicans.  If the problem is fixed, it's harder to use it as a wedge issue to raise money.  Or am I too cynical?

I've always wondered what would happen if Roe v Wade was overturned. The Republicans would no longer have one of their few consistent election arguments.

There are other issues to be used, but imo, this would make a significant dent in things for the Republicans in terms of drawing out the vote. They could pivot and try for a national law banning it or something like that,  and that might work. Overall, though,  this has been the Republican issue for so long I can't help but think it would dent political donations/ voter excitement at least somewhat.

[StarBright]

I enjoyed this "dystopian US" piece from Tom Nichols about what he thinks the US will look like:

https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/peacefield/61e8c5049d9e380022bce4c4/when-democracy-ends/

I like his take on conservatives not pushing the agenda too far at the Federal level - because most of those in power don't want to actually live in the states they are creating.

I also really enjoyed his book "The Death of Expertise".

[ChpBstrd]

Just a thought after seeing it mentioned - when was the last time there was a constitutional amendment?  It was obviously planned by your Founding Fathers that the constitution would be a living document that could change with the times, since there is the ability to have a constitutional amendment.  As an outsider, part of the underlying issues seems to be that the present political process is frozen.

I am also saying this because for the longest time we had to get approval from the British Parliament to make changes in our constitution.   :-(   Of course they rubber stamped it, but still . . .  not great.  And our present means of amendment is almost impossible in practice.  50 states is a huge number to deal with, we have enough problems re amending the constitution with 10 provinces and 3 territories.

The 27th Amendment passed in 1992 - it only took 202 years. That basically said that Congress can't give themselves a pay raise in the current session. Prior to that the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age to 18 passed in 1971 and only took a few months to be ratified. 2/3 of states have to ratify any amendment, so 38 of 50. That's obviously a pretty high bar for anything controversial which is why no amendments have passed in 30 years.

Of course, our political system was designed to move slowly and have lots of checks and balances. So you could say it's a feature, not a bug.

Also, while a constitutional amendment might definitively settle an issue (like abortion), it might not be in the interests of either the Democrats or the Republicans.  If the problem is fixed, it's harder to use it as a wedge issue to raise money.  Or am I too cynical?

I've always wondered what would happen if Roe v Wade was overturned. The Republicans would no longer have one of their few consistent election arguments.

There are other issues to be used, but imo, this would make a significant dent in things for the Republicans in terms of drawing out the vote. They could pivot and try for a national law banning it or something like that,  and that might work. Overall, though,  this has been the Republican issue for so long I can't help but think it would dent political donations/ voter excitement at least somewhat.

Stages of fundraising appeals:
1) We have to limit "abortion on demand" and only let it be used for rape/incest!
2) Now that abortion is hard to get... Abortion is murder so we have to ban it at the state and local levels!
3) Now that abortion is banned... We need to track down and prosecute anyone who performed or received an abortion, like El Salvador is doing!
4) Now that the guilty are in jail... We need to punish the politicians and activists who supported the infamous pro-choice movement!
5) [insert next outcome of one-party theocratic state, when fundraising for the ruling party is unnecessary]

[Samuel]

I actually don't think Roe being overturned would let too much air out of the pro life movement. The issue is not going away. The left will immediately launch a very visible fight to reinstate Federal abortion rights so no one will be tempted to think the struggle is actually over. We'd hear about it in every single speech by a Democrat going forward. I have to think that to an evangelical "Democrats are fighting to resume killing babies" is very nearly as motivating as "Democrats are killing babies".

What I wonder about is what effect this could have on the middle. How many from the middle would find reinstating Federal abortion rights sufficiently motivating to vote for Democrats when they otherwise would be hesitant to? How many could stomach also advancing the farther left parts of the Democratic agenda they don't want in order to try and re-secure abortion rights they do believe in? I could see many deciding they can live with the new status quo, especially if they live in the half of the country where abortion access will not be change at all. But I also wonder if this could actually result in some regrowth of the more moderate wing of the Democratic party, where a pro abortion rights stance coupled with vocal skepticism of the more far left policies could be viable in battleground districts.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Just a thought after seeing it mentioned - when was the last time there was a constitutional amendment?  It was obviously planned by your Founding Fathers that the constitution would be a living document that could change with the times, since there is the ability to have a constitutional amendment.  As an outsider, part of the underlying issues seems to be that the present political process is frozen.

I am also saying this because for the longest time we had to get approval from the British Parliament to make changes in our constitution.   :-(   Of course they rubber stamped it, but still . . .  not great.  And our present means of amendment is almost impossible in practice.  50 states is a huge number to deal with, we have enough problems re amending the constitution with 10 provinces and 3 territories.

The 27th Amendment passed in 1992 - it only took 202 years. That basically said that Congress can't give themselves a pay raise in the current session. Prior to that the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age to 18 passed in 1971 and only took a few months to be ratified. 2/3 of states have to ratify any amendment, so 38 of 50. That's obviously a pretty high bar for anything controversial which is why no amendments have passed in 30 years.

Of course, our political system was designed to move slowly and have lots of checks and balances. So you could say it's a feature, not a bug.

Also, while a constitutional amendment might definitively settle an issue (like abortion), it might not be in the interests of either the Democrats or the Republicans.  If the problem is fixed, it's harder to use it as a wedge issue to raise money.  Or am I too cynical?

I've always wondered what would happen if Roe v Wade was overturned. The Republicans would no longer have one of their few consistent election arguments.

There are other issues to be used, but imo, this would make a significant dent in things for the Republicans in terms of drawing out the vote. They could pivot and try for a national law banning it or something like that,  and that might work. Overall, though,  this has been the Republican issue for so long I can't help but think it would dent political donations/ voter excitement at least somewhat.

Stages of fundraising appeals:
1) We have to limit "abortion on demand" and only let it be used for rape/incest!
2) Now that abortion is hard to get... Abortion is murder so we have to ban it at the state and local levels!
3) Now that abortion is banned... We need to track down and prosecute anyone who performed or received an abortion, like El Salvador is doing!
4) Now that the guilty are in jail... We need to punish the politicians and activists who supported the infamous pro-choice movement!
5) [insert next outcome of one-party theocratic state, when fundraising for the ruling party is unnecessary]

If it did go this extreme,  it would alienate more and more conservatives and lose its potency as a driver to get people out to vote.

I will also say that I think even if overturning RvW was only a small deflation for Republicans in terms of their ability to energize voters, I believe it would be a large boost on the other side for Democrats.

[Abe]

They would pivot to all those illegals and their multiple kids coming over the border! There’s always a new boogieman/ woman.

Oh and all those “woke” people ruining everything, amirite!?

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

They would pivot to all those illegals and their multiple kids coming over the border! There’s always a new boogieman/ woman.

Oh and all those “woke” people ruining everything, amirite!?

Just to reiterate, I'm certainly not saying that there won't be other issues used. Of course there will. They're a political party and they're going to try to fire up their base on something. I just think it will take the wind out of their sails more than it seems some on here think it will.

[talltexan]

Urban Democrats benefit from the energy of a lot of people of color. They are often more conservative on social issues (incl. abortion).

The story about a future in which Democrats were dominant depended on them enjoying large majorities among Hispanic voters. They also are much less likely to be pro-choice than liberal Whites, and Trump was very successful in making in-roads with these voters not only in Florida, but Texas as well.

[chemistk]

They would pivot to all those illegals and their multiple kids coming over the border! There’s always a new boogieman/ woman.

Oh and all those “woke” people ruining everything, amirite!?

Just to reiterate, I'm certainly not saying that there won't be other issues used. Of course there will. They're a political party and they're going to try to fire up their base on something. I just think it will take the wind out of their sails more than it seems some on here think it will.

I hope that you're right. I'd like to think that would be the silver lining amongst all this. I'd also hope, in that circumstance, that the net effects of outlawing making abortion more dangerous and difficult would shine a light on the social issues that lead to people getting abortions in the first place.

It wouldn't necessarily mean that you could get the Evangelical/Adventist ultra-theocrats or most anti-abortion Catholics on board with abortions again, but maybe (just maybe) folks would begin to see why we need better access to healthcare, better support for maternity/paternity time off work, better access to contraception (probably not), and better access to sex education.

Of course none of those things could come to pass either, but then there's just more basis to argue that at the end of the day, the theocrats and many Conservatives just want a way to subjugate groups they feel should be "less than".

[LaineyAZ]

I enjoyed this "dystopian US" piece from Tom Nichols about what he thinks the US will look like:

https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/peacefield/61e8c5049d9e380022bce4c4/when-democracy-ends/

I like his take on conservatives not pushing the agenda too far at the Federal level - because most of those in power don't want to actually live in the states they are creating.

I also really enjoyed his book "The Death of Expertise".

I like the article too.  (it was only available to subscribers, which I am, so I was able to read it.)  His advice is to pay attention to state and local elections.
 
In the meantime, sadly, it looks like the rural/urban political divide within states will continue but we won't have the federal government or the judiciary to be the adults in the room.

[talltexan]

I am starting to contemplate what conditions might require a move to another state.

I live in NC, and--while we've been far ahead of our neighbors through COVID--it's clear that Republicans are entrenching themselves for a near-super-majority that will last for years. With the exception of Virginia, our neighboring states all have trigger laws that will (I have no doubt) outlaw abortion this year (and I'm mindful of my fourth grade daughter).

But I also feel like centrists who are committed to Free elections, allowing technical expertise to have a role in making policy, and the rule of law--I was a registered Republican until 2021 after all--cannot abandon the battleground states, or this problem gets worse. The country will move right-ward as the sorting continues.

[maizefolk]

But I also feel like centrists who are committed to Free elections, allowing technical expertise to have a role in making policy, and the rule of law--I was a registered Republican until 2021 after all--cannot abandon the battleground states, or this problem gets worse. The country will move right-ward as the sorting continues.

This is very much a challenge. How much does one weigh the trade offs between having the greater potential impact creating better world/country for everyone vs protecting oneself and ones own family?

At a certain point it starts to feel a bit too much like the prisoner's dilemma.

We're better off as a society if many people all prioritize making the choices that give them the greatest potential for positive impact across our whole system of government.
But any one individual is better off prioritizing protecting themselves and their loved ones.

[bacchi]

As a kid in the 80s, I remember a conversation among more liberal relatives about Reagan and how his Presidency would convince a lot of people to start voting Democratic to enact more social welfare laws. It didn't really happen.

This will be the same. If abortion is outlawed in a majority of the states, there won't be a great outrage. Most people will shrug and go about their lives -- as long as Disney+ is streaming and they can get Ramen take-out.

Further, when Roe falls, the evangelicals won't stand down and pat themselves on the back. They'll work to make it illegal nationwide.

[EvenSteven]

But I also feel like centrists who are committed to Free elections, allowing technical expertise to have a role in making policy, and the rule of law--I was a registered Republican until 2021 after all--cannot abandon the battleground states, or this problem gets worse. The country will move right-ward as the sorting continues.

This is very much a challenge. How much does one weigh the trade offs between having the greater potential impact creating better world/country for everyone vs protecting oneself and ones own family?

At a certain point it starts to feel a bit too much like the prisoner's dilemma.

We're better off as a society if many people all prioritize making the choices that give them the greatest potential for positive impact across our whole system of government.
But any one individual is better off prioritizing protecting themselves and their loved ones.

More like tragedy of the commons, but yeah. I really felt it when choosing where to live based on school district, moving out of the "bad" school district and into the "good" one.

[talltexan]

History correctly judges him as a transformational figure for America (you may disagree with whether it was a positive transformation).

One year after his inauguration, Reagan was stuck where Biden is, though. The economy was still in malaise (unemployment was his problem at that point), and he'd lost the initial bolt of enthusiasm he'd had in 1981. Reagan's party was able to maintain control of the Senate for another five years from that point.

[bacchi]

I enjoyed this "dystopian US" piece from Tom Nichols about what he thinks the US will look like:

https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/peacefield/61e8c5049d9e380022bce4c4/when-democracy-ends/

I like his take on conservatives not pushing the agenda too far at the Federal level - because most of those in power don't want to actually live in the states they are creating.

I also really enjoyed his book "The Death of Expertise".

I'm not entirely convinced. If the evangelical tail wags the dog, they'll push for an abortion ban in California and NY and other coastal states. The GOP elites won't care -- as mentioned, they can fly their pregnant teen daughter to another country or use a secret clinic (daughters from moral, upstanding, families did "visit their aunt for the summer" before Roe, after all).

Revolutions, whether from the right and left, always get over-exuberant. The vocal alt-right (10% of the population?) is particularly fractured. They'll start turning on themselves.

[GodlessCommie]

I've seen too many predictions in various flavors of destiny, here and abroad. All were BS.

People who work to get what they want win. That's it. That's the secret.

[chemistk]

I've seen too many predictions in various flavors of destiny, here and abroad. All were BS.

People who work to get what they want win. That's it. That's the secret.

Very accurate. We as a species don't have many universal moral truths, and the goalposts move all the time. Hard to assume things will trend toward some "natural good" when we can't even figure out what that would be.

One of the great ironies of the modern liberal movement, is that the ultimate goal (broad brush strokes, and a lot of my personal interpretation of the end-result of a more liberal society) is that each individual should be free to do with their life what they please without many societal constraints. If you want to be a transgender oboe player in on the streets of London, why should anyone tell you otherwise?

I like to think of it as fear-free idealized individualism, much like many past visions of a utopian future, each living within their own bliss.

There's no cohesion in that. If you want to be left alone to toot away, not having to worry about hate crime, healthcare, the whims of a deity, or your next meal, you'll probably not care too much about what's going on in the rest of the world. And that's just not good source material for a sociopolitical movement. I have started to notice the people around me who are generally left-leaning and how they behave, and I find that they (more often than not) are just trying to enjoy their life within the confines of our existing society, leaving the real action of change to some "other" (BLM, LGBTQ, Abortion Rights, etc.) while they enjoy themselves knowing the fleeting nature of time.

I can't blame them (or frankly, myself), but again - not a good way to unify a group of people against another.

Meanwhile, the "other side" is tight-knit though their oppressive collective individualism. "I want to live my life how I want but I'm afraid some <deity>, <politician>, <minority>, <fill in the blank>, is going to take that away from me so I'm going to head them off at the pass to protect my way of life out of fear and anger.

Round up a few of those, for whom the fear of eternal damnation and/or an undeserving other taking what's "theirs" (instead of learning to love your life with what you have and who you are), and you get yourself a pretty good head of steam to do just about anything you want, given enough time.

[partgypsy]

Just a thought after seeing it mentioned - when was the last time there was a constitutional amendment?  It was obviously planned by your Founding Fathers that the constitution would be a living document that could change with the times, since there is the ability to have a constitutional amendment.  As an outsider, part of the underlying issues seems to be that the present political process is frozen.

I am also saying this because for the longest time we had to get approval from the British Parliament to make changes in our constitution.   :-(   Of course they rubber stamped it, but still . . .  not great.  And our present means of amendment is almost impossible in practice.  50 states is a huge number to deal with, we have enough problems re amending the constitution with 10 provinces and 3 territories.

The 27th Amendment passed in 1992 - it only took 202 years. That basically said that Congress can't give themselves a pay raise in the current session. Prior to that the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age to 18 passed in 1971 and only took a few months to be ratified. 2/3 of states have to ratify any amendment, so 38 of 50. That's obviously a pretty high bar for anything controversial which is why no amendments have passed in 30 years.

Of course, our political system was designed to move slowly and have lots of checks and balances. So you could say it's a feature, not a bug.

Also, while a constitutional amendment might definitively settle an issue (like abortion), it might not be in the interests of either the Democrats or the Republicans.  If the problem is fixed, it's harder to use it as a wedge issue to raise money.  Or am I too cynical?

I've always wondered what would happen if Roe v Wade was overturned. The Republicans would no longer have one of their few consistent election arguments.

There are other issues to be used, but imo, this would make a significant dent in things for the Republicans in terms of drawing out the vote. They could pivot and try for a national law banning it or something like that,  and that might work. Overall, though,  this has been the Republican issue for so long I can't help but think it would dent political donations/ voter excitement at least somewhat.

Stages of fundraising appeals:
1) We have to limit "abortion on demand" and only let it be used for rape/incest!
2) Now that abortion is hard to get... Abortion is murder so we have to ban it at the state and local levels!
3) Now that abortion is banned... We need to track down and prosecute anyone who performed or received an abortion, like El Salvador is doing!
4) Now that the guilty are in jail... We need to punish the politicians and activists who supported the infamous pro-choice movement!
5) [insert next outcome of one-party theocratic state, when fundraising for the ruling party is unnecessary]

If it did go this extreme,  it would alienate more and more conservatives and lose its potency as a driver to get people out to vote.

I will also say that I think even if overturning RvW was only a small deflation for Republicans in terms of their ability to energize voters, I believe it would be a large boost on the other side for Democrats.

no it won't. Because rich people (including rich politicians) can always get abortions. And we have seen a segment of population in these conservative states consistently voting against their own self interests for quite a while now, because people are amazing at rationalization.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Just a thought after seeing it mentioned - when was the last time there was a constitutional amendment?  It was obviously planned by your Founding Fathers that the constitution would be a living document that could change with the times, since there is the ability to have a constitutional amendment.  As an outsider, part of the underlying issues seems to be that the present political process is frozen.

I am also saying this because for the longest time we had to get approval from the British Parliament to make changes in our constitution.   :-(   Of course they rubber stamped it, but still . . .  not great.  And our present means of amendment is almost impossible in practice.  50 states is a huge number to deal with, we have enough problems re amending the constitution with 10 provinces and 3 territories.

The 27th Amendment passed in 1992 - it only took 202 years. That basically said that Congress can't give themselves a pay raise in the current session. Prior to that the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age to 18 passed in 1971 and only took a few months to be ratified. 2/3 of states have to ratify any amendment, so 38 of 50. That's obviously a pretty high bar for anything controversial which is why no amendments have passed in 30 years.

Of course, our political system was designed to move slowly and have lots of checks and balances. So you could say it's a feature, not a bug.

Also, while a constitutional amendment might definitively settle an issue (like abortion), it might not be in the interests of either the Democrats or the Republicans.  If the problem is fixed, it's harder to use it as a wedge issue to raise money.  Or am I too cynical?

I've always wondered what would happen if Roe v Wade was overturned. The Republicans would no longer have one of their few consistent election arguments.

There are other issues to be used, but imo, this would make a significant dent in things for the Republicans in terms of drawing out the vote. They could pivot and try for a national law banning it or something like that,  and that might work. Overall, though,  this has been the Republican issue for so long I can't help but think it would dent political donations/ voter excitement at least somewhat.

Stages of fundraising appeals:
1) We have to limit "abortion on demand" and only let it be used for rape/incest!
2) Now that abortion is hard to get... Abortion is murder so we have to ban it at the state and local levels!
3) Now that abortion is banned... We need to track down and prosecute anyone who performed or received an abortion, like El Salvador is doing!
4) Now that the guilty are in jail... We need to punish the politicians and activists who supported the infamous pro-choice movement!
5) [insert next outcome of one-party theocratic state, when fundraising for the ruling party is unnecessary]

If it did go this extreme,  it would alienate more and more conservatives and lose its potency as a driver to get people out to vote.

I will also say that I think even if overturning RvW was only a small deflation for Republicans in terms of their ability to energize voters, I believe it would be a large boost on the other side for Democrats.

no it won't. Because rich people (including rich politicians) can always get abortions. And we have seen a segment of population in these conservative states consistently voting against their own self interests for quite a while now, because people are amazing at rationalization.

I'm not sure which part your response applies to.  I do think Democrats would get a significant boost if RvW was overturned and abortion was banned with trigger laws in a large number of states because it would be a big change from the status quo.

If your comment was about those extreme examples, I have to ask. Do you really think that working to fine or criminalize politicians who have supported abortions or jail every woman who has ever had an abortion would drive as many people to vote as overturning RvW would? I can't imagine so.  Some people would support it, some would have cognitive dissonance as you say and vote for people who did those things,  but there's no way it would be the rallying cry that overturning RvW has been.

[GodlessCommie]

I wouldn't try to make any predictions. Things are *extremely* fluid and unpredictable.

Example: it became known that Trump had an executive order ready for the military to seize the voting machines.

It's a side story. At this moment it's not on the front page of WaPo, NYT, or CNN.

All the predictions we are making are for the US of A where it would have produced a months-long wall-to-wall coverage.

That US of A is gone.

[partgypsy]

Just a thought after seeing it mentioned - when was the last time there was a constitutional amendment?  It was obviously planned by your Founding Fathers that the constitution would be a living document that could change with the times, since there is the ability to have a constitutional amendment.  As an outsider, part of the underlying issues seems to be that the present political process is frozen.

I am also saying this because for the longest time we had to get approval from the British Parliament to make changes in our constitution.   :-(   Of course they rubber stamped it, but still . . .  not great.  And our present means of amendment is almost impossible in practice.  50 states is a huge number to deal with, we have enough problems re amending the constitution with 10 provinces and 3 territories.

The 27th Amendment passed in 1992 - it only took 202 years. That basically said that Congress can't give themselves a pay raise in the current session. Prior to that the 26th Amendment which lowered the voting age to 18 passed in 1971 and only took a few months to be ratified. 2/3 of states have to ratify any amendment, so 38 of 50. That's obviously a pretty high bar for anything controversial which is why no amendments have passed in 30 years.

Of course, our political system was designed to move slowly and have lots of checks and balances. So you could say it's a feature, not a bug.

Also, while a constitutional amendment might definitively settle an issue (like abortion), it might not be in the interests of either the Democrats or the Republicans.  If the problem is fixed, it's harder to use it as a wedge issue to raise money.  Or am I too cynical?

I've always wondered what would happen if Roe v Wade was overturned. The Republicans would no longer have one of their few consistent election arguments.

There are other issues to be used, but imo, this would make a significant dent in things for the Republicans in terms of drawing out the vote. They could pivot and try for a national law banning it or something like that,  and that might work. Overall, though,  this has been the Republican issue for so long I can't help but think it would dent political donations/ voter excitement at least somewhat.

Stages of fundraising appeals:
1) We have to limit "abortion on demand" and only let it be used for rape/incest!
2) Now that abortion is hard to get... Abortion is murder so we have to ban it at the state and local levels!
3) Now that abortion is banned... We need to track down and prosecute anyone who performed or received an abortion, like El Salvador is doing!
4) Now that the guilty are in jail... We need to punish the politicians and activists who supported the infamous pro-choice movement!
5) [insert next outcome of one-party theocratic state, when fundraising for the ruling party is unnecessary]

If it did go this extreme,  it would alienate more and more conservatives and lose its potency as a driver to get people out to vote.

I will also say that I think even if overturning RvW was only a small deflation for Republicans in terms of their ability to energize voters, I believe it would be a large boost on the other side for Democrats.

no it won't. Because rich people (including rich politicians) can always get abortions. And we have seen a segment of population in these conservative states consistently voting against their own self interests for quite a while now, because people are amazing at rationalization.

I'm not sure which part your response applies to.  I do think Democrats would get a significant boost if RvW was overturned and abortion was banned with trigger laws in a large number of states because it would be a big change from the status quo.

If your comment was about those extreme examples, I have to ask. Do you really think that working to fine or criminalize politicians who have supported abortions or jail every woman who has ever had an abortion would drive as many people to vote as overturning RvW would? I can't imagine so.  Some people would support it, some would have cognitive dissonance as you say and vote for people who did those things,  but there's no way it would be the rallying cry that overturning RvW has been.

The problem is the people who are most affected (poor, minorities in red states) are already being disenfranchised, and republicans have yet more legislation down the pipeline to increase that trend. Doesn't matter if you can vote in the abstract, if you are too busy working low end jobs, or possibly pregnant and either trying to find an abortion and/or having to raise a child you didn't intend to, to devote time to political rallies! Instead it's just a situation of survival.

[Just Joe]

So now Michigan candidates are telling people to come to the polls armed - and to be prepared to "lock and load". That could go badly could it? I have to ask: "What would Jesus do?" ;)

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/02/01/gop-candidate-tells-voters-to-show-up-armed-to-polls-detmer-michigan-sot-jarrett-newday-vpx.cnn

I imagine if a couple of liberals came armed to a polling place, these same conservatives would have fits about it. 

[JoePublic3.14]

"What would Jesus do?"

Not fret or make a big deal about it. Show up during open polling hours, walk in, check in, mark ballot, turn in ballot, leave. Not much different from going to the grocery store and buying a dozen eggs.

Of course when you travel with a posse of disciples, it’s easy to be chill.

[Just Joe]

I won't be thrilled to vote at a precinct "protected" by a bunch of armed rednecks ready to "lock and load". That's alot worse than the candidate trying to chat people up at the voting booth or give away puppies in exchange for your vote.

Keep the damn guns at home.

[GodlessCommie]

Imagine being a poll worker where "lock and load" crowd insists on checking your voting machines - with no real understanding of what's right and what's wrong.

[brandon1827]

And fed by a constant stream of misinformation about the security of voting machines and the entire voting process