What Happens With Trump and the Republican Party Over the Next Four Years?

[Grumps 3,704]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

How do you explain Republican's refusal to stand up to him?

 

A GOP senator reveals just how deranged many in his party have become

Opinion by

Greg Sargent

Columnist

Dec. 9, 2020

 

Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, has done something truly extraordinary. He has now stated in unequivocal terms that it’s unacceptable for his fellow Republicans to try to subvert the will of American voters to keep President Trump in power illegitimately.

Why have so few other Republicans proved willing to take this simple step?

Toomey’s declaration contrasts sharply with a new development in the Georgia runoffs. GOP Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue just announced their support for a deranged lawsuit filed by Texas that seeks to overturn popular vote outcomes in four battleground states that Trump lost.

Those Georgia moves capture a broader state of affairs: It appears that untold numbers of elected Republicans are trying to inspire in GOP voters a state of what you might call permanent warfare against our democratic institutions and the opposition’s voters alike.

This war footing doesn’t permit acknowledgment of the opposition’s claims to legitimate political representation. It treats efforts at the wholesale subversion of unwanted electoral outcomes as an acceptable tool of political competition.

This is what Toomey’s new declaration throws into sharp relief.

“It’s completely unacceptable,” Toomey told the Philadelphia Inquirer, referring to Trump’s efforts to get numerous GOP-controlled state legislatures to appoint pro-Trump electors to the electoral college, in defiance of the state’s popular vote outcome.

“The president should give up trying to get legislatures to overturn the results of the elections in their respective states,” Toomey continued.

Compounding the heresy on display here, Toomey even dared to reveal that he had personally congratulated President-elect Joe Biden on his victory, in a conversation Toomey described as “pleasant.”

Some Republicans support Trump’s efforts

Our discourse on all this is deeply confused. News organizations sometimes emphasize that few elected Republicans have affirmatively endorsed Trump’s efforts to get state legislatures to overturn popular vote outcomes. This creates the impression that they are quietly tolerating a Trumpian tantrum that they hope will pass, as if the problem here is their mere spinelessness.

But the more important point — and this is almost never conveyed with clarity — is this. While it’s good that some state-level Republicans have rebuffed these efforts, a great many other elected Republicans have refrained from declaring them wholly intolerable, which would demonstrate that they must be unequivocally condemned as existentially destructive to democracy.

By doing exactly this, Toomey has exposed this deficit.

It’s also rarely conveyed with clarity that some Republican senators actually do tacitly support efforts to overturn the election results. This includes Loeffler and Perdue. Loeffler has suggested that by trying to get rogue electors appointed, Trump is merely exercising his “right” to take “legal recourse,” which is nonsense, because that tactic lies outside what the law allows.

A demented lawsuit

What’s more, Loeffler and Perdue have now endorsed this new Texas lawsuit. It literally asks the Supreme Court to step in and invalidate Biden’s electors in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, on the fictitious grounds that the voting was administered fraudulently in them — echoing claims that numerous courts have shot down already.

This could clear the way for GOP state legislatures in all four states to appoint Trump electors, overturning the results, as Trump himself has repeatedly demanded.

This is insane. As University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck points out, the suit seeks to exploit the fact that the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to hear disputes between states, but it does not automatically hear such complaints, and in this case, it won’t. The high court already declined to hear a somewhat less crazy lawsuit seeking to overturn results in Pennsylvania.

But the fact that this is a stunt doesn’t make it less disgusting that Loeffler and Perdue have endorsed it. Their statement declares that they “fully support” this lawsuit on the grounds that Trump has “every right” to exercise his “legal recourse.”

Again, here they are declaring this effort to subvert the will of the voters to be a legitimate tactic. Since one of the states is Georgia, this is in effect a declaration of war on their own state’s electorate.

“The central argument here is that we should let the election be decided by unelected judges and partisan state legislators, rather than the 150 million Americans who cast legitimate ballots,” Vladeck told me. “That would be the end of democracy as we know it.”

The future of the Trumpified GOP

We hear a lot of pious talk about the need to restore solidarity and national unity these days. But as Will Wilkinson points out, such calls should be seen in the context of ongoing efforts to overturn the election: They ring particularly hollow when many major figures on the right are essentially demanding the majority’s “abject submission to the minority’s will.”

Indeed, as Laura Field demonstrates, if Trump can keep exerting influence over the GOP, one can envision him — and the Republicans carrying his mantle — seeking to maintain among supporters a kind of permanent state of warfare against the legitimacy of our institutions and of the opposition. It will be rooted in retributive rage against our system and its voters for rendering its verdict against Trump.

Philosopher John Dewey wrote that democracy is sustained by “faith” in the fundamental worth of other human beings, faith that is demonstrated in all sorts of routine ways. This faith is rooted in a “generous belief” in the “possibilities” of others, in their “capacity” for “intelligent judgment and action.”

What we’re seeing now in this ongoing support for election subversion is at bottom a form of very profound contempt for those possibilities — a very profound contempt for other human beings; for fellow Americans.

Toomey has hinted at another way. But far too few elected Republicans seem interested in following it.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/09/gop-senator-reveals-just-how-deranged-many-his-party-have-become/

You don’t have to stand up to a lame duck bully. You just have to wait two months for him to disappear.

[homersapien 11,373]

12 hours ago, Grumps said:

You don’t have to stand up to a lame duck bully. You just have to wait two months for him to disappear.

Well obviously, they don't consider him a lame duck regarding the possibility of running again.  Nor are they willing to piss off the large number of his cultist followers.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 12/9/2020 at 4:24 PM, caleb1633 said:

Well, I disagree with you about the Woke Movement. I can respect that you don't agree with me, as the ability to disagree and still remain civil is something I fundamentally believe in.

I do not think the assessments about Social Justice Theory are conspiratorial. To me, a conspiracy implies an insidious intent. I don't think those who subscribe to Social Justice Theory are bad people AT ALL. I think they mean really well, but their solutions to societal issues will only end up doing more harm than good. History is full of examples where good intentions and bad ideas have pernicious effects.

I don't think I'm being "reactionary" when Science Magazine is shutting down for a day to comply with the demands of the Woke movement, even going so far as to use the hash tag #ShutDownSTEM. Stating the idea that "Science is Racist."

Science is not racist by definition, but some scientists undoubtedly are.  If what you say about "Science Magazine" is true, then I tend to agree with you.  But then, I don't understand the argument they were responding to.  Regardless, that's their prerogative and no harm done.

I also don't think I'm being "reactionary" when we see examples of this creeping totalitarianism plunge Seattle and Portland into chaos. Totalitarianism?

The New Republic came out with an article recently stating that we should abolish the Constitution. In discussing the Founding Fathers, they state, "It is beyond debate that we are their moral superiors." (i.e., the radical left think they are morally superior to the founders).

Got a link for this?  To me, it sounds like a deliberate provocation designed to promote debate, which is a good thing.  "The radical left think they are morally superior to the founders" is the sort of generalized political statement that doesn't carry any weight with me. 

Now, the Founding Fathers were far from perfect, but they laid a blueprint for society that was pivotal in seeing the greatest progress in human history. It wasn't pretty and it wasn't as quick as it should've been, but the progress was undeniable.

I agree, but lets not forget the constitution accomodated slavery, even if it didn't mention it.

Liberal ideals (the ones mentioned in my first post) were pivotal in creating the most free and tolerant societies ever, and these ideologues think they should be allowed to abolish the Constitution because they are the self-proclaimed morally superior? I'm sorry, but that level of arrogance and cognitive distortion is preposterous.

I agree with everything you say here.  I just don't accept that a few "ideologues" represent a serious threat to abolishing our constitution, even longer term. 

Academia is riddled with this ideology, and it's found its way into big tech. It's only a matter of time before it starts influencing policy. You may disagree with me, but throwing out the label of "reactionary wackos" is an ad hominem response, rather than truly addressing the argument.

Well, I suppose one could say that academia is "riddled" with all ideologies, otherwise it wouldn't be academia.    And you'll have to explain what you mean by finding it's way into "big tech".

 I haven't spent much time studying it so I am coming from a fairly ignorant perspective, but I agree with "Social Justice Theory" as defined by: "the recognition there are dimensions to the concept of justice beyond those embodied in the principles of civil or criminal law, economic supply and demand, or traditional moral frameworks". https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Social+Justice+Theroy

Regarding "reactionary wackos"  I didn't actually mean that you were one, although I understand why you would infer that.   What I really meant is to me, arguments that imply specific ideas (slogans/explanations/theories) related to social injustice represent organized direct threats to our fundamental values and institutions, come across as a little wacky. I thought you were heading that way and apparently I over-assumed.  So I apologize for using it.

Having said that, I applaud intellectuals who present reasoned contrary arguments opposing any ideology - or idea - regardless of what I  think about it. It's It's  an appropriate test for all new ideas.  (Personally, it's good to have one's opinions challenged intellectually.  It serves to both sharpen and broaden one's thinking.)

As for the social justice "ideas" in question, I see them serving a valuable function in challenging the reality of our supposed "subscription" to purported values. I think the actual historic facts, past and recent, clearly indicate we have often fallen short of our supposed ideals.

Accordingly, I generally see social justice movements as a useful mechanism for us to reach a "more perfect union".

 

[caleb1633 1,418]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

 I haven't spent much time studying it so I am coming from a fairly ignorant perspective, but I agree with "Social Justice Theory" as defined by: "the recognition there are dimensions to the concept of justice beyond those embodied in the principles of civil or criminal law, economic supply and demand, or traditional moral frameworks". https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Social+Justice+Theroy

Regarding "reactionary wackos"  I didn't actually mean that you were one, although I understand why you would infer that.   What I really meant is that, to me, arguments imply specific ideas (slogans/explanations/theories) related to social injustice represent organized direct threats to our fundamental values and institutions, come across as a little wacky. I thought you were heading that way and apparently, I over-assumed.  So I apologize for using it.

Having said that, I applaud intellectuals who present reasoned contrary arguments opposing any ideology - or idea - regardless of what I think about it. That's an appropriate test for all new ideas.  (And personally, it's good to have one's opinions challenged intellectually.  It serves to both sharpen and broaden one's thinking.)

As for the social justice "ideas" in question, I see them serving a valuable function in challenging the reality of our supposed "subscription" to purported values. I think the actual historic facts, past and recent, clearly indicate we have often fallen short of our supposed ideals.

Accordingly, I generally see social justice movements as a useful mechanism for us to reach a "more perfect union".

 

I agree that, in general, social justice movements are a mechanism to lead us to a "more perfect union." That's because a true social justice movement builds itself on the premise of common humanity and equality. This is exactly what Martin Luther King Jr. is most known for saying, "Judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin." [Paraphrased]. This Social Justice "Religion" is more predicated on vengeance for historical wrongs. It isn't about what Ruth Bader Ginsberg talked about, where she advocated that women be afforded the same opportunities as men. It's now about, "The patriarchy is evil" and "if you're a white male, you're contributing to this oppressive system simply by existing." It's about saying that America is so incredibly racist to its core that it's beyond redemption, and instead of making improvements to the "house" that was built, their goal is to tear the house down completely. Its desire is for social justice, but the methods it's employing certainly aren't leading us to a "more perfect union", no matter how good their intentions of it doing so are.

 

I don't think that the tools we were using to make such incredible progress in the 20th Century are failing us. I think that there is a confluence of factors that led to this rise in social justice activism. I'll name a few that I think are at play. First, the grievance studies being taught in academia. Second, social media, which set the stage for a "call out culture", where people could be hostile towards one another in ways that wouldn't happen if they were talking to someone in person. Third, the law of diminishing returns. It's easy to address blatant examples of discrimination (e.g., desegregation of bathrooms, women not allowed in the Armed Forces, no gay marriage). Once it becomes less and less, identifying and addressing it becomes much more difficult. This leads to a sort of "neurological relativism", which is the concept that as something becomes more rare, you begin to find things that are not what you were looking for, but you still think they are. This is not to say that racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are extinct, but it is perplexing that where the biggest surges of this Woke "religion" is occurring is in places that are the most progressive. Evergreen University was one of the most liberal colleges in the country, yet somehow students latched onto the idea that white supremacy was running rampant across the campus, and ended up going so far as to hold the entire faculty hostage, who had done nothing but placate to their requests. They created a boogyman of sorts by shining a light behind a small figure onto a wall, amplifying it to where it looks like a much greater threat than it actually is. This fueled the primitive human urge of needing a villain to fight against and a hero to cheer for. Any explanation that doesn't allow that is emotionally unfulfilling.

 

We should certainly aim to live in a society in which nobody should be held back from what they can do because of some personal characteristic allotted to them by chance. If somebody has the competency to do something, and the desire to do something, then nothing about their race, sex, or sexual orientation should hold them back. But minimizing difference is not the same as pretending difference does not exist. To assume that sex, sexuality, and skin color mean nothing would be ridiculous. But to assume that they mean everything is dangerous to our society.