- In the last 36 hours, the Supreme Court upheld the Muslim travel ban; went on to eviscerate public sector unions; and now, Justice Kennedy will give an undemocratically elected President control of the courts for a generation.
Other than that, how’s your day?
We were cheated out of the Presidency in 2000. We were cheated out of the Supreme Court seat in 2016. We were cheated — again — out of the Presidency in 2016. We have suffered mass disenfranchisement and undemocratic gerrymandering — and that’s before you count the essentially undemocratic nature of the Senate from its origin, and the filibuster. Since 2000, we’ve been screwed. It’s wrong to ascribe our disempowerment, in the main, to political strategy choices by one candidate or another.
There are already many analyses out there about what we’ll lose, including and especially Roe v. Wade. We’ll see a court unmoored by either precedent, legislative intent, or democratic Zeitgeist (yes, courts reflect that too). It will destroy our civil freedoms; our environmental, health, and labor protections. Because of its political durability, we have not appreciated how much of the New Deal/Great Society program was on once-disputed legal grounds. Now, much of the progress from the 1930s through the 1970s, that provided vulnerable populations the ability to breathe just a little easier, will be dynamited like the Taliban destroying statues of Buddha. It will provide an increasingly fascistic government the invasive powers it wants; our oligarchy the tribute it craves; and invoke some Federalist Society frabba-jabba as post-hoc rationalization. They will do what they want.
For those of us of middle age, this twilight battle for actual self-government will define the rest of our age — that, and the ferocity of a hotter planet.
There is almost always a work-around; power is always a negotiation. But let’s not sugar-coat this: Sometimes the good guys lose. Being right is not enough. Increasingly, even being in the democratic majority isn’t enough.
May we be as courageous and ingenious as the new era of Sisyphus requires.
johntmay says
They go low, we go high….and this is the end result? We are the majority. Our candidate for the White House received the majority of the votes. We still want to play nice? We want “centrists” to be the center of our party, those individuals who see Wall Street as important or more important as those of us supplying ALL the wealth that Wall Street has? We support candidates who want “affordable” health care instead of health care as a right? Would anyone on the right support “affordable gun rights”? Hell no. They want rights and they got them.
I’m as pissed as anyone. I’m 63, financially secure (at least for now) and my kids are going to do well, so no matter how the courts rule or what the idiot in the White House does, I’ll squeak by. But I’m tired of “going high” and compromising with the devil.
The only bright spot on the day was a 28-year-old Latina running her first campaign, ousting a 10-term incumbent Democrat. I’m staying focused on that.
doubleman says
When they go low, kick ’em in the neck.
seascraper says
Maybe America is not a social democracy, or is not destined to become one. It seems to that the social democracies in Europe which the Democratic Party seeks to emulate are not going to have that form of government much longer. In which case it may be that the last 70 years or so were an accident of history. It could be that the USA shaped Europe that way in order to serve our ends. What looked like generous social spending and ever expanding civil rights was actually a continual weakening of will that allowed the American military to push the interests of American companies worldwide without interference.
Domestically it made an unstable mix that broke open when it was penetrated by Africa, the Middle East and in our case South America. Either way it would be a model impossible to follow.
jconway says
^This guy is repeatedly racist Charley, we don’t need him on this blog.
jconway says
Speaking of another Charlie, doesn’t he lose his pro choice credentials abstaining last election rather than voting for Clinton? Guess women’s rights didn’t really matter to him. Like son, like father.
Steve Consilvio says
jconway, I don’t see anything racist in seascraper’s post. While I don’t understand his last sentence at all, it doesn’t strike me as racist. He might be viewing thing in a broader context than you. His post actually reminds me of General Smedley Butler’s War is a Racket essay, and what Eisenhower later termed ‘the military-industrial complex.’
Back to the article as posted: I think the conservatives on the court completely misunderstand their role. They think the court is an umpire, and the decisions by the President and Congress are sacrosanct. In my opinion, they are 1/3 of the government, and part of a system of checks and balances whose duty is to protect liberty, not political process. By thinking they are just an academic interpreter of historical precedent, they miss their role as a check against the excesses against liberty by either the President or Congress. In allowing corporations and laws to degrade liberty they have unwittingly threatened liberty and the social contract that makes liberty possible. This sophism is not a new problem, but they have it bad because they can take any small thread and inflate its importance. Todays ruling that paying dues violates peoples first amendment rights is almost comical, but does reveal how tightly they have equated money to speech. Using the same logic, they should have overturned Citizens United, since the profits spent on campaigning by corporations violate the free speech of the workers who generated the profits and have no say in how it is spent, too.
Personally, I would be fine with getting a lot of the money out of politics, because billion dollar campaigns are just a waste of resources. At this point we might as well just draw straws. A random choice is equally democratic, just as it is on a jury. If random people can decide life and death, then those interested in the position can just as easily be chosen at random, and it would put an end to partisanship rancor.
Christopher says
I agree that comment is not racist, but plenty of his are.
centralmassdad says
I think I am going to have to disagree there. The notion that the introduction of Africans, Middle Easterners, and South Americans is causing a “weakening of the will” that threatens our government and institutions is the racial ideology of the National Socialist movement. This is among the ugliest things ever written on this blog. The fact that someone can wave it away like that indicates just how far down the road to evil our country has traveled.
seascraper says
The weakened will is the weakening of traditional military ambitions of European states. Has nothing to do with race.
It was a positive thing, Europe gets to give up military spending and instead has great welfare. USA got to tell the world what to do. We got great jobs and cheap resources out of it. Our adversaries were weak.
Now it’s not working any more, because globalism was never really an effort to bring down national barriers. We pushed globalism because it was great for the USA. Now it’s not so great. Now our adversaries are empowered by it, and that’s why it’s ending.
Generous welfare benefits don’t work with open borders because the rest of the world is relatively poor and will come to collect benefits. That’s why I can point out again and again how you who claim the moral high ground for a few illegal immigrant children aren’t really so virtuous. You know if you honestly followed the logic you set out, the border would be overrun and the Democrats would be a party of 20% of the population.
Charley on the MTA says
Wrong. Read the last paragraph again and consider what it’s supposed to imply.
seascraper says
By your logic 3 billion people are eligible to come to the USA. Because I would deny that I’m 100% racist. However your friends would only bring in 1 million of those 3 billion. Are they not 99.75% racist then? Is that .25% really enough for you to throw around accusations of racism?
Maybe racism comes up because I point out the hypocrisy that you can’t refute, so instead of arguing honestly you say racism.
jconway says
The far right and far left both converge against intervention abroad and a strong security state at home. Pat Buchanan defended the Iran Deal and is a persistent critic of Trump’s relationship to Netanyahu. He was a vocal opponent of the Patriot Act. He is also skeptical of free market capitalism and favor a paternalistic stance on welfare and protectionist stance on trade. He is also overtly racist when it comes to opposing non-white immigration and fear we are losing our European heritage.
What he said up there echoes the social contract for whites only argument of a Buchanan or Enoch Powell.
So I’m with him on the military serving a corporate agenda being a bad thing, but he is making an argument that the civil rights changes weakened our will and we allowed too much mixing with non-white immigration. I think it is blatantly racist and has no place on this blog. My wife is an American citizen and she belongs here just as much as this racist does, even if she’s from somewhere Trump has repeatedly belittled as a bad country full of terrorists.
seascraper says
I don’t agree with Butler. It’s not some corporate conspiracy. It was good for the US population broadly because we got cheap goods, cheap energy, and beat our enemies in battle.
scott12mass says
Near the end of his post I think seascraper is saying the countries like Sweden who were so welcoming to immigrants (for them Middle Eastern) are feeling overwhelmed and are now cutting back their idealistic benefits. For us in the US, our immigrants are coming from South/Central America and many in this country feel we will be overwhelmed.and also want to cut back.
The generous welfare states of Europe will continue to cut back and exclude more (Italy just recently wouldn’t let a ship land). Nationalistic tendencies will continue to strengthen.
Christopher says
So how do we get to where this is the norm globally? We need to expand the pie rather than giving everyone increasingly smaller pieces. I have always been one to say that everyone not a threat to public health or safety should be allowed in to the US, but I also understand that literally taking everybody is not realistic. Therefore it is also my view that in tandem with a welcoming immigration policy should be a foreign policy that encourages political liberty and economic opportunity everywhere so that people do not have to leave home to realize their birthright as human beings.
scott12mass says
US foreign policy, do what’s good for the US. You can’t let everyone in, there has to be limits. If the lifeboats of the Titanic had rowed back to collect everyone, there would have been no survivors.
If you want to make a Coke commercial and get the world to sing together put some pressure on the bureaucratic mess that is the UN. If you can pull them away from their comfy desks.
The Economic and Social Council Chamber in the United Nations Conference Building was a gift from Sweden. It was conceived by Swedish architect Sven Markelius, one of the 11 architects in the international team that designed the UN headquarters. Wood from Swedish pine trees was used in the delegates’ area for the railings and doors.
The pipes and ducts in the ceiling above the public gallery were deliberately left exposed; the architect believed that anything useful could be left uncovered. The “unfinished” ceiling is a symbolic reminder that the economic and social work of the United Nations is never finished; there will always be something more which can be done to improve living conditions for the world’s people.
Christopher says
If you want to continue the Titanic metaphor the appropriate solution would have been to have as many lifeboats seats as there were for passengers and crew to begin with.
I actually don’t think US foreign policy should be strictly about narrow self-interest. We can and should be different and better. We are not united by ethnicity, but a common value of liberty and justice for ALL. Our creed is that we hold these truths to be self-evident – that all are created equal, endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ultimately, if we stipulate to the impracticality of accepting everyone then it really is in our interest to encourage their home countries to provide what they come here to seek. Otherwise they show up at our borders and turning them away is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Let other countries be guided by narrow and short-sighted self-interest. For me this is a key and appropriate example of American exceptionalism.
Charley on the MTA says
It’s definitely racist; the last paragraph is classic essentialist clash-of-civilizations nativism. IOW, sophisticated-sounding racist claptrap.
I’m leaving it up for the time being, as an example and also because I don’t want to lose the responses, at least not immediately. Admins are conferring. Yes, this is not the first offense.
mannygoldstein says
Sisyphus Generation
Nailed it.
But we let it happen.
Let’s stop letting it.
centralmassdad says
A wothwhile read on this 28th day of June, 2018
Molly Ivins: The Fun’s in the Fight
Really, read it. Especially Charlie on the MTA.
jconway says
I cannot help but wonder what would have happened had President Obama nominated a full throated progressive instead of a poll tested, Lindsey Graham will vote for him moderate like Garland. Would we have eventually ended up with Garland as the compromise? You’ would think after ACA he would have learned the GOP wanted to give him nothing. McConnell obviously skirted his constitutional responsibilities to steal a seat, but President Obama should have anticipated that.
Charley on the MTA says
Appreciate that very much. Tragic view of history; antic mode of living through it.
petr says
Psalm 37 springs immediately to mind…
Do not fret because of those who are evil
or be envious of those who do wrong;
for like the grass they will soon wither,
like green plants they will soon die away.
Trust in the Lord and do good;
dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.
Take delight in the Lord,
and he will give you the desires of your heart.
Commit your way to the Lord;
trust in him and he will do this:
He will make your righteous reward shine like the dawn,
your vindication like the noonday sun.
Be still before the Lord
and wait patiently for him;
do not fret when people succeed in their ways,
when they carry out their wicked schemes.
Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;
do not fret—it leads only to evil.
For those who are evil will be destroyed,
but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land.
A little while, and the wicked will be no more;
though you look for them, they will not be found.
But the meek will inherit the land
and enjoy peace and prosperity.
The wicked plot against the righteous
and gnash their teeth at them;
but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
for he knows their day is coming.
The wicked draw the sword
and bend the bow
to bring down the poor and needy,
to slay those whose ways are upright.
But their swords will pierce their own hearts,
and their bows will be broken.
Better the little that the righteous have
than the wealth of many wicked;
for the power of the wicked will be broken,
but the Lord upholds the righteous.
The blameless spend their days under the Lord’s care,
and their inheritance will endure forever.
In times of disaster they will not wither;
in days of famine they will enjoy plenty.
But the wicked will perish:
Though the Lord’s enemies are like the flowers of the field,
they will be consumed, they will go up in smoke.
The wicked borrow and do not repay,
but the righteous give generously;
those the Lord blesses will inherit the land,
but those he curses will be destroyed.
The Lord makes firm the steps
of the one who delights in him;
though he may stumble, he will not fall,
for the Lord upholds him with his hand.
I was young and now I am old,
yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken
or their children begging bread.
They are always generous and lend freely;
their children will be a blessing.[b]
Turn from evil and do good;
then you will dwell in the land forever.
For the Lord loves the just
and will not forsake his faithful ones.
Wrongdoers will be completely destroyed[c];
the offspring of the wicked will perish.
The righteous will inherit the land
and dwell in it forever.
The mouths of the righteous utter wisdom,
and their tongues speak what is just.
The law of their God is in their hearts;
their feet do not slip.
The wicked lie in wait for the righteous,
intent on putting them to death;
but the Lord will not leave them in the power of the wicked
or let them be condemned when brought to trial.
Hope in the Lord
and keep his way.
He will exalt you to inherit the land;
when the wicked are destroyed, you will see it.
I have seen a wicked and ruthless man
flourishing like a luxuriant native tree,
but he soon passed away and was no more;
though I looked for him, he could not be found.
Consider the blameless, observe the upright;
a future awaits those who seek peace.[d]
But all sinners will be destroyed;
there will be no future[e] for the wicked.
The salvation of the righteous comes from the Lord;
he is their stronghold in time of trouble
The Lord helps them and delivers them;
he delivers them from the wicked and saves them,
because they take refuge in him.
tl;dr ““When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it–always.” Gandhi