The Members of the GOP who Sympathized with the Insurrection and Helped Spread Trump’s Election Lies are now in Control of the House of Representatives
In a nutshell, what happened this week in the House was that Kevin McCarthy had difficulty securing enough votes to become Speaker of the House because a small group of Republicans held out until he gave in to their demands. Because the Republicans hold such a slim majority in Congress, any 5 can hold up everything by refusing to vote for whatever is on the agenda. In this case, they demanded (among other things) control over House rules and other vital committees and the ability for any member of the majority, at any time, to call for a vote ousting the speaker. The group that wielded such power are the same Representatives who sympathized with the insurrectionists and helped push Trump’s election lies.
This happened because they got reelected despite their support for the insurrection, or, in some cases, because they supported the insurrection. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, (one of the few extremists who supported the insurrection and supported Kevin McCarthy from the beginning) successfully defended herself in court against a bid to keep her off the ballot due to her support for the insurrection and, despite being stripped of committee assignments, she raised more than $3 million in small donations in the first quarter of 2021, a staggering haul for a new member of Congress.
This group is driven by outrage and anger and a desire for the federal government to fail. They envision a sort of libertarian free-for-all, no-rules society with each person out for himself or herself. We can thus expect Trump’s style of governing, creating a constant string of crises and spectacles, to continue in the House for the next two years.
An Example of What We Can Expect
In other words, the Republicans who supported the insurrection demanded the ability to interfere with the DOJ’s ongoing investigation. The executive branch is a separate branch of government so Congress can’t actually interfere, but the House can assume oversight of the executive branch. I expect we will have the House insisting on answers and the DOJ refusing to give them because grand jury proceedings are (by law) secret and because doing so will hinder the ongoing investigation. Given what we’ve seen happening in court the past few years, I expect the courts will support the DOJ.
When I posted these ideas on Mastodon, a few people made comments like these:
- Democrats should ignore their subpoenas the way the Republicans did
- No wonder all of this is happening. The people who planned and carried out the insurrection have gotten away with it, proving that anyone can break laws.
- The clown show in the House is all the fault of the Democrats because they failed to do anything at all about the lawbreaking
If you are tempted to leave comments like those, please see my FAQ page first. It’s here.
Extreme Laissez-Faire v. A Well-Regulated Government
A reader on Mastodon asked me a question, and the answer helps explain what the Republicans in the House want:
Why do our anti-trust laws allow corporations to get so big and swallow up smaller corporations, which makes it easier for large corporations to wield too much power?
First, to clarify: Anti-trust laws prevent unfair competition and price fixing. A company doesn’t violate anti-trust laws because it has grown large.
Underlying the question “why do we allow corporations to get so large,” is the question of how far the economy should be regulated. A bit of history for perspective:
Before 1913, there was no federal income tax. Before the 1930s, capitalism was basically unregulated. There were no labor protection laws and no minimum wage. Workers often couldn’t break out of the poverty cycle. Price fixing, market manipulation, and money laundering were legal. People (well, white men) could, without restraint, cheat. Many got rich that way.
Then as now, those who support an extreme laissez-faire economy believe that if you remove all regulations, those who are most capable will take control of our industries and commerce, everything will run more smoothly, there will be jobs for everyone because the competent will create jobs by expanding possibilities, and we will move toward a brighter tomorrow.
Those who want a regulated economy, in contrast, believe that an unregulated economy permits cheating and injustice. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, first elected president in 1932, believed that capitalism needs to be regulated to curb its worst impulses. He brought us the New Deal, which was basically a series of legislation giving us worker protections, minimum wage, social security, and regulations outlawing things like fixing prices and manipulating markets. The idea was to make it harder to get rich by cheating and to help people out of poverty. These regulations and the new regulatory agencies expanded the size (and complexity) of the federal government.
There was immediate pushback from laissez-faire conservatives, who wanted to undo the New Deal and take us back to the 1920s.
As a result of the Civil Rights and women’s rights movements, the federal government grew even larger with regulations to create racial and gender fairness. We now have a massively large and complicated government. In fact, its current complexity is beyond many people’s capacity to tolerate it.
In the 1980s Reagan ran on a platform that included deregulating business. He won both elections in massive landslides and, as he promised he would, began deregulating business. (Reagan also appealed to the people who resented the laws creating racial equality by means of what we now call dog whistles, which formed the current Republican coalition.)
A word of warning to people who want regulations for fairness: You will never get perfect fairness. There will always be pushback. Moreover, perfect fairness (or any perfection) isn’t possible. All we can do is try to keep moving the needle toward fairness. The legislation passed during Biden’s first two years will push the needle toward fairness in ways that are not always immediately visible. For example, the FCC proposed a regulation eliminating non-compete clauses in labor contracts, which will have an enormous impact on the ability of workers to earn a living. (I could write an entire blog post on how good this regulation would be for workers, including those who work in high tech.)
One reader said:
Those of us who don’t view fairness for its own sake as a particularly important goal, but view a well-regulated system as a) safer, b) more predictable, and c) better at producing good outcomes for the majority. Fairness is a plus, and helps contribute to some of those ends, but is not the main end of regulation.
What we see as good government (a well-regulated government) the opposition sees as tyranny (all those regulations getting in the way of their “freedom.”)
Nullification Purists
Libertarians—an influential portion of the Republican Party—want to abolish all federal regulatory agencies. The Texas Libertarians want to abolish the IRS. In 1980, when David Koch was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for vice president, he wanted to abolish public schools and welfare payments, Social Security, and rent control. He hoped to do away with the I.R.S, the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Border Patrol, and the regulatory agencies.
Imagine our country without public schools and social security. That’s what they want.
Today there is a group called the 10th Amendment Nullification Purists. To avoid sending you to their website, I will take screenshots.
The Nullification Libertarians want to revive the 1798 principles that allow states to nullify laws that overreach federal powers. That wasn’t a typo. 1798.
Their argument is that the 10th Amendment is perfectly clear: Any power not specifically given to the federal government is reserved for the states. Because there is nothing in the Constitution about the FBI, EPA, FCC, etc, they insist that all regulatory agencies are illegitimate and unconstitutional.
The website urges everyone to “Reject. . . all unconstitutional ACTS!” This explains GOP tolerance of lawbreaking. They are cool with violating regulations that they don’t believe should exist. They don’t care if Trump cheated on his taxes because they think the IRS is an illegal institution and that nobody should have to pay taxes.
Their rationale and arguments were the same as those given by the Confederacy. Remember the Confederacy insisted it wasn’t fighting for slavery. The Confederacy insisted it was fighting because the federal government was overreaching. The Confederacy, like the 10th Amendment Purists, liked how things were in 1798.
Returning the country to the federal government as it existed in 1798 is another way to be an insurrectionist. If you want to dismantle the government, you can bring in a wrecking ball, or you can send in an army, or you can dismantle it piece by piece, or you can elect representatives to Congress who promise to render the federal government so dysfunctional that it completely fails.
No surprise, the nullification libertarians reject the concept of compromise and bipartisanship, which would allow the federal government to function. From their website:
The theory that bipartisanship in Washington is a bad thing is the theory that will govern the House of Representatives over the next two years. Brace yourself.
Fortunately, the majority in the House is razor thin, the Democrats control the Senate which means the House Republicans will not be able to pass actual legislation, and Biden is in the White House. Between 2016 and 2018 they had a trifecta. We will get through the next two years, but expect a clown show and constant spectacle.
A reader on Mastodon said this:
As I see it – the worst the insurrection caucus can do is completely paralyze the House for the next couple of years – that’s certainly not the worst-case scenario. Failing to raise the debt ceiling or not responding to critical issues will not look good for the GOP. Plunging the US and RoW into recession will not please those who fund the GOP. I do worry about what they can do to shut down, defund ongoing J6 investigations – but that’s going against public opinion and probably won’t end well for the GOP. Fingers crossed.
I agree, and as far as averting a calamity, the Democrats only have to peel off 5 Republicans from districts Biden won who would like to be reelected in 2024. I’m sure that Democrats who were rolling their eyes at the Republican shenanigans also believed that they will show the voters who they are and thereby lose in 2024.
On the lighter side, how about a travel story about a Pucon yarn shop, a shopkeeper, a pigeon, and his friend?
What happened was this. One day a pigeon came into a yarn shop. The pigeon had an injured leg, so the shopkeeper fed him.
Evidently the word went around because the next thing the shopkeeper knew, she had 45 pigeons coming around asking for food. None of them are injured so she keeps chasing them away. The injured pigeon is allowed into her store so he can eat, but he keeps inviting his friends.
One of my readers on Mastodon said, “It’s the same old story: you let one in, he brings in all his relatives and friends, the next thing you know they’re laying pigeon “anchor eggs”, and there goes the neighborhood.”
Could someone who donated to for example Trump’s Election Defense Fund sue for fraud and have a reasonable likelihood of success? How about other Big Lie promoter organizations and people and campaigns?
That’s a good question, actually. Probably they could but you’d probably have a hard time finding a donor willing to be the plaintiff in that case. if they donated they’re hard core MAGA types.
Thanks for your latest, readable, helpful analysis to usher in this new year, Teri.
(($; -)}™
Gozo
Thank you, Teri, for an excellent post. I have a few (?) thoughts I scribbled down as I read through:
> “Given what we’ve seen happening in court the past few years, I expect the courts will support the DOJ.”
I’d add the weasel word, “mostly support.” Given the performance of the loose Cannon, the support won’t be 100% consistent. >:-(
> those who support an extreme laissez-faire economy believe … Those who want a regulated economy
Humph. The choice isn’t binary, so *I* want to know why is it so often presented as such. Pure laissez-faire leads to horrid working conditions and rip-off pricing. Over-regulation leads to stifled commerce. It shouldn’t be all or nothing, the discussion should center on balance. I don’t see that often enough.
> For example, the FCC proposed a regulation eliminating non-compete clauses in labor contracts, which will have an enormous impact on the ability of workers to earn a living. (I could write an entire blog post on how good this regulation would be for workers, including those who work in high tech.)
Yay!! But, I regularly pester my electeds about at-will employment laws. They are insidious and evil. It is those laws that make it cheaper to for companies to throw their workers out on the street and hire new ones rather than go to any bother trying to deal with internal transfers. “Employees are all interchangeable cogs”, after all. My employer retirement benefits were all canceled by various layoffs, BTW. And with the looming debt limit hike in the offing, SSA may be on the line. #TheRepublicanPartyMustDie.
> Imagine our country without public schools and social security.
>:-( They’re working on that. I’ve come to agree with the “too much bipartisanship” sentiment, tho. Similarly, I also don’t believe in negotiating with terrorists. We can resume when there is another country-before-party to replace the party of treason.
> That’s why democracy is so hard.
> And the underlying problem is that people get their news from Fox and right-wing medi
It might be a little easier if information outlets who color themselves as being news outlets were sanctioned for knowingly disseminating false information. Claiming an “entertainment” cover should fail.
> Remember, all the Democrats have to do is peel off 5 Republican votes and default can be avoided.
Remember also that those 5 would be pilloried and basically excommunicated. May as well ask ’em to caucus with the Dems. For the debt ceiling, that will not happen. Mint a platinum coin and Congress will pass legislation to kill the debt ceiling forever.
> I think they’d also like roads and bridges to be privately owned so
There are ways to charge for ATC (air traffic control), too. 😉
I am hoping that there will be at least 10 Republicans who care more about the rule of law and the country to join Democrats if a major intervention is needed. On the other hand, I hope that some incompetence as displayed during the election of the Speaker of the House continues to be displayed. There should be some consequences for the Republicans in the next elections.
If none of the Republican House members oppose the worst abuses of the rabble rousers, we require some other course of action. We are beyond the point mentioned by the post of “Gegen die AfD” which I am quoting below.
https://mastodon.social/@gdafd/109638311146523564
Just a quick response to the reader you quoted who said this:
“Plunging the US and RoW into recession will not please those who fund the GOP.”
I used to believe, as well, that surely the titans of Wall Street want to see the economy grow and the stock market go up.
There may be some truth to that, but I think what we have learned in recent decades is that the rich folks who fund the GOP and set its policies care more about their relative tax rates than they do about their absolute level of wealth.
Put more simply, they care more that their taxes are low (and regular folks’ taxes are higher) than they do about having a huge amount of money if other people have money also. This is a big topic, and I’m going to avoid writing more about all the nuances, but it sure seems like it’s status that matters more to the wealthy than wealth per se.
A good piece of evidence for this is that the stock market, and the economy generally, has done better under Democrats than under Republicans in recent decades. That makes some intuitive sense because if you provide education and the means to work (i.e., health care, which should keep you healthy if done right) then people do well and make more money.
The tendency to think the Republicans are better at “business” and the “economy” is one of the weirdest things in American politics. It just isn’t supported by the data. But it sure has a huge impact. Look at the number of people who ignored Trump’s obvious downsides because he was a “businessman” or “knows how to make money”, for instance.
Moral of the story: don’t bet on the Republicans in the House caring if their antics crash the economy. Their goal is to create chaos which can be blamed on the Democrats so that the Republicans gain more power and reduce taxes on the wealthy. We’ve all seen it so many times since the 80s…
A smallish pedantic correction for your otherwise excellent and correct post: The confederacy was fighting for slavery, full stop. They were very open about it. The only state right they cared about was the right to retain slavery. The idea about “states rights” that developed after the Civil War was one part gaslighting, one part dog whistle. See the Declarations of Secession.
I understand that they were fighting for slavery, but they framed their arguments as states’ rights.
Check out the extremely explicit South Carolina declaration of secession. States’ rights was more a gloss from the Lost Cause crowd. The South was in truth furious at Northern states declaring they had the states rights to emancipate fugitives.
Thank you, Teri. I guess we’ll have hope the good the Biden Administration can accomplish can counteract the troubles from Republican House Majority.
That and perhaps keep plenty of Alka Seltzer on hand and some escapist entertainment for emergencies.
When elected officials who engaged in an attempted coup are allowed to continue with impunity their propaganda and attacks on democracy for two years after the insurrection at the Capitol, it gives the impression that elected officials are above the law.
I know the wheels of justice turn slowly, but the lack of action against elected officials who incited violence and supported the Big Lie has emboldened the right – and they now control the House – and they promise investigations of the 1/6/21 investigations.
It was serendipitous to see McCarthy win the speakership on 1/6/23 – two years to the day after he voted to overturn the results of a legal and just election – and he voted to overturn the election just hours after the violent invasion of the Capitol was quelled. A mind boggling series of events, to be honest.
Hi, Anne, you are repeating a “rage-inducing simplification” or “Internet meme” that has no meaning. I am allowing the comment through, but I intend to use it to launch a new blog post about the dangers of exactly what you are doing.
You might want to start with my FAQ page. It’s the pinned post.
As a matter of clarification, do you believe Justice is investigating, or will, the House and Senate members who might have facilitated the insurrection? There is much quiet about them nowadays.
Have you checked my FAQ page for an answer? It’s the pinned post. For one thing, the feds grabbed Scott Perry’s phone last August.
Which Senate members are you thinking of?
Excellent post, thank you!
My concern isn’t that the extremists will be able to pass their agenda legislatively. As you noted, neither the Senate nor President Biden will sign on. It’s that with their willingness to throw the national debt into default over the debt ceiling unless Congress agrees to slash critical programs like Social Security and Medicare (which are self-funded and whose elimination would do nothing for the debt or the deficit) they could do some significant damage that will hurt us all even without passing any legislation. Government shutdowns are their preferred way of taking hostages.
Who are the nullification libertarians currently in Congress? Were all of them newly elected or were some already in place?
Thank you!
I took that example as the way many of them think. I don’t know if anyone would call themselves that any more than they would call themselves libertarians, but you can see that the Koch brothers (libertarians) influence the ideology of the Republican Party.
I recall the Harvard academic, Thomas Woods, had written a bestseller within Tea Party circles a dozen or so years ago reviving the nullification arguments of John Calhoun. These arguments were probably tenable ones in the era between ratification up to the secession of the Confederate states but I don’t see how they are applicable now. The Constitution has been amended, for example the 14th Amendment, and there has been further deliberation on the meanings of the “commerce,” “general welfare,” and the “necessary and proper” clauses since then.
Good question and response. Yes, the major influencers like the Koch brothers really do have an effect on government.
It’s like how a tiny hint of burnt garlic or cilantro can unpleasantly take over the flavor of a dish for those who are most affected by it.
What no picture of JJ!? Thanks as always but you have to appreciate the irony in the fact that Jim Jordan will now lead the Judiciary committee after he ignored his subpoena to January 6 investigating his alleged involvement in the insurrection? I live in Ohio and our legislature just voted for their SOH and it wasn’t who the GOP wanted. The Dems voted with the more moderate GOP representative. Now some are calling for cloture of the renegades. What I am wondering is, aren’t all reps given committees assignments and if not what do they do all day? Any way thanks for your writing on the legal issues of the day . Have a good week and next week can we see JJ?
JJ will return, no worries.
He didn’t actually ignore the subpoena. He challenged the constitutionality of it. This is an important distinction that gets lost. Challenging and not complying based on a challenge is not the same as ignoring.
Is there any resolution to the constitutionality issue of congressional subpoenas? GOP reps are claiming they’ve got a bunch of subpoenas lined up to go…
Well, don’t forget that during the past 20 years, people wanted anyone who challenged a subpoena to be jailed instantly. Yes, there are procedures for challenging subpoenas and it’s possible to be prosecuted if those challenges fail and a person still refuses to comply.
In other words, the same rules apply to Democrats as Republicans.
While door knocking in a poor area of KY, and there are many, I was stunned by the lack of awareness about candidates, things happening in politics and elections. One sleepy woman who answered the door told me “I’m just trying to make it day to day. I don’t have time to pay attention to all this stuff”. It changed my views about why voter turnout is so lousy and why people keep voting for politicians who are out to undermine the very supports on which some people rely. In our sound byte media and culture, many of the poor and middle class folks are manipulated very easily by messaging (wherever they hear/see it) and are exhausted by the day to day struggle to make ends meet and raise their families. Democrats have a lot of work to do
I had a similar experience in 1980 (the first campaign I volunteered on) when I called every resident of Hallsville Missouri. It changed me forever because I understood the problem and the enormity of the task. That’s why democracy is so hard.
Since then, the entire state of MO is one giant Hallsville with the exception of the urban centers.
Excellent post and quite terrifying. I have 2 hopes for successful pushback: (1) as evidenced by the midterm elections, it seems that regular folks (whatever that means) who vote do NOT want what the GOP is trying to sell and that they DO like a strong federal government based on constitutional principles and the rule of law; and (2) business interests which, while they’d love less regulation and more fossil fuels and apparently, less planet — they equally, I believe, do NOT want chaos amid a worsening climate and national insecurity before the country’s waiting enemies … Both of these factions are actually pretty powerful and I’m hoping that the GOP will shoot themselves in the collective feet by acting out all this cosplay. The Jan. 6 Committee was a positive example of how hearts and minds can be affected by grownups behaving like grownups…
My sentiments exactly! Any “freedom loving” conservative voter in a red state will think twice before supporting the re-election of a GOP rep or senator who voted to end their social security. Nihilism will NOT be rewarded. I am hoping that the mess they’ve created by their overreach and capitulation to extremism will be met with a blue wave that will bring sanity back to D.C. in 2024. (This hope is not inspired by wishful thinking or naivete, but rather the groundswell response to the attempt to restrict reproductive rights in the states. Women and young people can and will save this country when many more of them realize what is happening and their power to stop it.)
The problem I see in this attitude from the far right is that they seem to ignore later amendments to the constitution which are part of the constitution. With that said, having worked for the Federal government my entire career (as an employee or a contractor) I have seen the enormous waste that exists. That doesn’t mean we should tear it all down.
My experience is mainly with the DoD and it amazes me that the DoD budget gets raised every year, with no questions asked. Working once for a division within a division of the DoD, I discovered an easy cost savings of 3 million per month. When this was rolled up into the organizations appropriations request, I was told “that’s just a rounding error”. Imagine if every division in the federal government had this same rounding error. I have friends that work for smaller agencies that operate on a shoe string budget that do good work but really could use more funding.
A lot of regulations are written with good intentions but it seems to me when they are proven not to work, they remain on the books, even when a future law may supersede it. This creates havoc and IMO a burden on the court system.
As veteran, I do want to see veterans taken care of an given an opportunity to succeed in civilian society. But should I be offered a job in a company that is trying to win government contracts where I get paid for doing nothing so that the company can claim they have so many veterans on their payroll when they submit a proposal? And, when they win the contract, they sub the majority of the work out to a large defense contractor?
I see the craziness at all levels of government. The Historical Preservation Board in my town will require homeowners to replace their windows with the same wooden energy inefficient windows when there are modern energy efficient windows that would look exactly the same on the structure.
It’s little things like this that make people so frustrated. So the question is how do the people get our representatives to foster compromise that makes sense? Corporations that control 80% of the market may not be *fixing* prices in a way that’s against the law but they are in control of competition and the market.
I pray every night (and I’m not that religious) for a strong center right and center left government that can compromise, try things, expand on them when they work, and change them when they don’t.
I think it was Heather Cox Richardson who said that McCarthy did not cross the aisle to make a deal with the Democrats and allowed himself to be held hostage by the MAGA extremists because he agrees with most of the extremists’ aims anyway. No argument from me.
Regarding the idea of a default on US Treasury debt. I really hope that President Biden directs Treasury Secretary Yellen to mint the platinum coin in sufficient denomination to obviate any possible fight over the debt ceiling. As a former manager of a bond mutual fund: I don’t think even most commentators at MSNBC (Stephanie Ruhle excepted) understand how the Republicans are playing with fire here.
We are not just risking another US credit downgrade/ resulting bump in interest rates. We are risking the status of the dollar as the world reserve currency. Furthermore, in the extreme case the Republicans would also be risking the solvency of the US financial system (not sure it gets this far but with these people it’s imprudent to rule anything out). Most banks own lots of Treasury securities; you don’t have to do much arithmetic to see what their balance sheets would look like if Treasury obligations became a doubtful asset.
There are even more reasons why it is irresponsible in the extreme even to entertain the idea of a default. If the Republicans succeed in damaging the credit of the United States (and with it the current financial system) China will do its best to fill that power vacuum and bend the resulting new financial world order to serve China rather than the world’s democracies. Not a world I’d choose to live in.
But the MAGA extremists just want to burn it down, baby.
Remember, all the Democrats have to do is peel off 5 Republican votes and default can be avoided. If there are not 5 votes, then I don’t think the Democrats can give in to demands in order not to default. That’s seems a litle bit like holding a gun to someone’s head and threatening to shoot if demands are not made. I suspect, though, that there will be 5 votes. There are 18 Republicans in Congress in districts that Biden won.
Of course, and I am well aware of the possibility of peeling off five votes. And may it be so.
But investors are nervous types. This kind of brinksmanship is unnerving. Each instance of this brinksmanship continues to eat away at foreign confidence in the United States. People around the world remember the default brinksmanship of 2011. And China, through Belt and Road, through its investments in Africa, continues to rise as an alternative to US leadership (their covid crisis notwithstanding).
In 2008, the real run on the money market funds happened when Lehman failed and tens of billions of dollars per hour moved silently to FDIC insured banks driven by mouse clicks. No one had to stand in line at teller counters to get their money out as they did in the 1930s.
The run actually ended well before the passage of TARP (a terrible and unnecessary rip-off of the taxpayer which paved the way for Trump) because then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson caused the Treasury to guarantee money funds the way FDIC guarantees bank deposits. When Paulson’s announcement crossed the newswires the run halted instantly.
These money movements happen VERY fast and disaster would have struck had Paulson waited another day or two, let alone however many days it took between Lehman’s failure and the passage of TARP.
That is the speed at which a run on the dollar could take place. If we had to institute currency controls to stop a run on the dollar it would be the beginning of the end for the dollar’s status, that’s what countries like Argentina and Russia do.
Biden should mint the coin and show his determination to take debt default brinksmanship off the table. We should never go there again.
Can you—or someone—explain the effect of minting a coin? I don’t understand this allusion, not being a financial expert.
But even in medieval times, there were roads and bridges built by the state, I think. Even fairly ancient states like Rome and China had centralized governments and public works– very major ones in both those cases. I can’t figure out how these yahoos expect anything big to get done, even if they give contracts to all their friends.
Which is why I imagine many corporate funders of GOP campaigns are becoming disenchanted with the extremists.
It’s interesting to watch, particularly the situation with DeSantis and Disney.
Teri, is the following way too idealistic?
Within advanced democracies, individual liberty — the competitive freedom distinctive of capitalism — is in tension with equality of opportunity. In America’s two-party system, balance must be established between a center-right and a center-left party, the former emphasizing individual liberty and the latter promoting safeguards for equality of opportunity.
In order to achieve a just equilibrium between liberty and equality, both Republicans and Democrats would have to negotiate in good faith, acknowledge that governance is primarily a matter of compromise, offer positive agendas and educate voters concerning why their respective agendas best promote the public welfare — why their respective agendas effectively balance liberty with equality in promotion of the common good.
If the forgoing is not way to idealistic, can anything approaching a functional government be established as long as the conservatives and liberals are committed to very different notions of freedom?
Libertarian conservatives, as you note, are free-market fundamentalists. They endorse the libertarian notion of freedom as “the right to expend your time, talents and resources in anyway you prefer, with the sole major constraints on freedom being contracts one has ‘freely’ entered”. They emphasize freedom from external controls and regulations that impede an individual’s preferred course.
Liberals who believe in multiracial-one-person-vote representative democracy endorse rational autonomy, a form of freedom as self-determination which is allied with John Rawl’s notion of “justice as fairness”.
Persons are rationally autonomous to the extent that they are:
1. Substantially in control of appetites and impulses and qualify as competent to initiate purposive, intentional decisions and actions;
2. Capable of deciding and acting in the light of what they believe to be a well warranted knowledge of the likely consequences of their decisions and actions;
3. Substantially free of coercive and manipulative influences.
Rational autonomy, which emphasizes self-control and knowledge of consequences, is a community project. It is a product of education and training and is inseparable from moral responsibility and accountability. It is the freedom to establish a just society in which equality of opportunity is increasingly well established.
Libertarian freedom is individualistic and virtually as amoral as the capitalist market.
Are these two competing notions of freedom the primary bases of extreme political polarization?
I think that’s one way to look at the idealogical divide.
A simpler way is that people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Boebert are unhinged and crazy, and all the Democrats have to do is peel off 5 Republican votes to avoid something destructive like a default.
The scariest thing to me is that both these crazies (and others) were reelected this year.
Andrew, I understand your argument, which could prevail and win support in college classrooms. However, Teri’s simplification can be readily understood by a much larger percentage of the voting public, who must be motivated to vote blue in the next election if we are to establish a true governing majority to end the anarchy in 2024.
GOP gets most of its support from the rural areas. They hold to their myth there that the Fed Gov’t is everything bad. However, their economy is the most subsidized economy in the country. If their hope to destroy the fed gov’t is realized, the 40% of their income that are subsidies will disappear.
And the underlying problem is that people get their news from Fox and right-wing media, so it’s difficult to reach them with facts and truth.
“we have met the enemy, and he is us” —pogo
I say us meaning the electorate, but i don’t really mean me, cuz I didn’t vote for the magas…
The voters have developed a taste for voting in razor-thin majorities, probably to make the boring reality show that is government more interesting. It’s working.
The way that happens, I think, is voters think, “Democrats are in control so I should vote Republican to balance out the power.”
I’m wondering about whether ranked choice voting might be one means to bring about more “balanced” broader representation rather than limiting binary choice that risks voting in candidates who hold very extremist and/or antidemocratic views.
Not sure how ranked choice voting fits into the broader context of our complex election and governing apparatus…
The GOP loves big government when it consists of agencies that take away rights and keep the “people” thinking GOP approved thoughts and behaving in GOP approved ways.
Right! Until it infringes on individual rights that really hit home on a personal level, e.g., reproductive freedom or social security. Just as access to medical care precluded repeal of the ACA as political suicide, there will be no going back to pre-1930 government when voters understand what their vote will mean to them on a personal level. They will come to their senses and vote for their personal security.
This is a great summary, but I have trouble believing that the average voter in, say, MTG’s district, shares David Koch’s ideology, which, whackadoodle as it is, at least has a coherent worldview. Maybe I’m underestimating the rank-and-file, but I don’t think so. Point being, we’re not in a fight about ideas and policy. We’re in a fight against a coalition of right wing ideologues allied with radical nihilists.
No federal agencies. No FAA. No infrastructure. Roads and bridges are only improved in the areas of wealth. Seems medevial.
I think they’d also like roads and bridges to be privately owned so you have to pay to use them.
They seem to want that very much. But TFG tried to do an infrastructure bill by rewarding friends and supporters with huge contracts. That never succeeded.
It’s painful to think of the whole interstate highway system consisting of toll roads. It’s like that in some places.
That has happened in some metro areas like Chicago – where they sold off street parking and the Skyway (with the mayor’s brother profiting from the parking deal too.)
But even in medieval times, there were roads and bridges built by the state, I think. Even fairly ancient states like Rome and China had centralized governments and public works– very major ones in both those cases. I can’t figure out how these yahoos expect anything big to get done, even if they give contracts to all their friends.