What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[crazy canuck]

It is striking to me how quickly people are retreating from the importance of liberal democratic institutions. Not so long ago we were discussing how they were under attack and the importance they have to democracy.

Now we have people who I would normally think were reasonable and intelligent fully endorsing turning their back on those same institutions in order to achieve political goals.

This is how democracy dies.

[alfred russel]

Sinema opposed the corp tax raise; not enough votes in the Senate.

If you couldn't get 1 more vote and it would have failed 51-49, why not put it to a vote at some point in time? Trump's trial was put to a vote in the first full month of the administration, even though it didn't have the votes.

[Berkut]

Except that Otto isn't saying the problem with the Democrats is insufficient grass roots militancy, it's taking unpopular positions on certain social issues.

That's a fair reading except I would say it's not so much taking unpopular positions as: the Republicans are creating issues that aren't really meaningfully significant in a real sense at all, and creating controversies where the natural Democratic inclination is to come down on a side that, because of the particulars, is going to be unpopular.

CRT is probably an easier example than the transgender stuff but I can go through both.

CRT - You start with something that had already been "seeded" as a boogeyman in higher ed, where even there it is not very common in undergraduate education, and where it is it tends to be in social science electives the vast majority of students would never take in any case. Then you transpose it down, do the things you said to make parents think it's a big issue K-12. Media machine churns. Then you have Democrats who want to defend independence of the school system and teachers ability to educate, who flub things like McAuliffe did here in Virginia where he basically says parents shouldn't worry about what teachers are teaching (I can't remember his wording off hand, but it was bad.)

The left exacerbates this immensely though, because not only do they reasonably note that this is largely a non-issue, there are elements of the left that have made any rational discussion of the issue among the left absolutely taboo, so large numbers of the moderates who might be inclined to going and fighting that battle know that if they do so, they are almost certainly going to get hammered from the crazy fundies on the right for defending "CRT", AND they are going to have the twitter left calling them fascists for noting that the American Revolution was not, in fact, driven by white people wanting more slaves.

The crazy right will define the entire issue to its base as being whatever the crazy left says it is, and the actual battleground that is actually being fought over, the completely sane middle, is too dangerous to inhabit to those who would need to fight against the right because they will be called fascists and right wing racist apologists from the left.

The transgender athlete issue is another perfect example. The NCAA and US Swimming is actually very sane on the issue - they recognize that this is fucking complicated, and is going to need a lot of thought and adjustment to reach an equitable middle, practical ground.

But if you parrot what, say, US Swimming is proposing, you are bigot anti-trans asshole worthy of cancellation, because the only acceptable stance is that transwomen are in fact identical to all other women and should be treated identically under all circumstances. Which is what the right is claiming is being fought over, but is not in reality what the argument is at all when it comes to actual proposals. And same with what is actually taught about race and racism in public schools.

It's fucking bizarre how bad the left is at this stuff, it's like they are trying to create an environment where winning is actually not just unlikely, but impossible.

[Berkut]

It is striking to me how quickly people are retreating from the importance of liberal democratic institutions. Not so long ago we were discussing how they were under attack and the importance they have to democracy.

Now we have people who I would normally think were reasonable and intelligent fully endorsing turning their back on those same institutions in order to achieve political goals.

This is how democracy dies.

Incorrect.

People are not saying anyone should turn their back oninstitutiions at all.

They are saying that

A) That is not the only arena that has to be fought, and
B) No matter how non-political we would like them to be, the reality is that they are in fact political in some cases, and hence need to be contested politically, and
C) We need to stop holding them up as some kind of sacred cows, and thinking that if we so much as look at them politically, they will suddenly lose all value as an institution, so we had better just pretend like they are not political because we wish they weren't

I don't think anyone has suggested, or believes for that matter, that we should "turn our back on those institutions". I suspect that not a single person who you are claiming says that would agree that they believe any such thing.

Was there particular posters you had in mind when you claimed that they believed these things you are telling them they believe?

[Berkut]

The corporate tax rate was 35% in the US. Trump cut it to 21%, with a bunch more changes reducing the corporate tax burden.

They also slid in a stealth middle class tax hike as well that nobody noticed.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The corporate tax rate was 35% in the US. Trump cut it to 21%, with a bunch more changes reducing the corporate tax burden.

Biden ran on increasing it back to 28%. Manchin said he supported going up to 25%, but that isn't the point. It is still 21% and we are now more than a year into the administration. I haven't looked at polling numbers on this issue but my hunch is the public supports a tax rate over 21%. There is a real chance we roll into the elections without congressional action on this, and if so LOL on any hope of the rate changing in the administration.

Shit like this is why the democrats are in danger of getting shallacked in the upcoming elections. They can run an impeachment trial of Trump before getting a cabinet in place and even before the covid relief package, but when it comes to corporate tax rates from supposedly the party of the working class...crickets...

That is why attacks work so well. You run on working class issues, the public cares about those and inflation, but you don't act. You are open to the charge what you care about is CRT and transgender stuff. But on day 1 you shut down keystone, and the federal minumum wage is still $7.25, where it has been since 2009...

I certainly agree that the Democrats should have forced a few of these things to hard votes, I actually have never bought into the idea that it's better to just leave the losses off the table. I think you can at least sell things to some voters better if you say "we tried to do this, that, and this other thing, Sinema or Manchin voted against us each time, so fuck those assholes." I think people don't understand the not voting, so it's harder to explain.

However I think it's probably only a small needle mover.

The stuff about working class issues, I think, unfortunately isn't true. The Democrats delivered some crazy working class stuff including big monthly cash payouts to working families and all kinds of other shit the last year, and the entire time they were cashing the checks a lot of these people were screaming Let's Go Brandon. A persistent problem with delivering on some working class pocket book issues is due to the complexity in how these programs are administered and operate, people often don't really understand the relationship between what they are getting and the Democratic party. (The infamous Kentucky voters who love Kynect, the local Obamacare exchange, but hate Obamacare.) It's a big problem that Democrats don't even get credit when they do deliver wins, and I suspect that several of the potential things they may have been able to land this year would have gone in that same direction.

I think the Democrats would be in a better position if they just had to deliver working class pocketbook policy wins, because I can see them doing that in the right circumstance. The problem is more that a lot of voters are just voting over these cultural issues primarily. I think it's also misunderstood sometimes when voters say the "economy" is their number one concern, the economy is actually now interpreted through a tribal lens. There is actually no economic situation the country could be in right now where a lot of these white working class voters would not be complaining. Obama proved that when he had like 6.5 years of solid growth and the Republican working class was saying he ruined the economy his entire Presidency. Even if you want to say the recovery was a little light for the working class, 2016 was still objectively by every measure, working class or billionaire class, a better economic reality than we had in 2009, and it didn't matter. Because they didn't like Obama they believed the economy was worse under him.

[grumbler]

It is striking to me how quickly people are retreating from the importance of liberal democratic institutions. Not so long ago we were discussing how they were under attack and the importance they have to democracy.

Now we have people who I would normally think were reasonable and intelligent fully endorsing turning their back on those same institutions in order to achieve political goals.

This is how democracy dies.

I haven't read things from your normally reasonable people turning their backs on institutions, but agree that that is a problem if it is occurring.  Can you name me some names?

[alfred russel]

The stuff about working class issues, I think, unfortunately isn't true. The Democrats delivered some crazy working class stuff including big monthly cash payouts to working families and all kinds of other shit the last year, and the entire time they were cashing the checks a lot of these people were screaming Let's Go Brandon.

Trump was all in on passing out free money too. And when he did so he made sure the checks were signed by him.

There are inherent problems with a 50-50 senate "majority", and it is just a bad break that gas prices are super high. But ultimately, if the public cares about covid and nasty inflation more than anything else, and the national dialogue is around CRT, climate change, and transgender stuff, you are going to lose. You control the white house and both houses of congress: lots of republican ideas are super unpopular. Maybe you can't get much done but if you aren't getting anything done, just push an agenda that makes them look bad. Case in point: why the hell would Biden say he would only consider a nonwhite female for USSC justice? Why not just appoint Brown Jackson?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right but if Democrats knew how to just "push winning ideas" I assume they would be. That's essentially the crux of the problem, the Democrats just aren't institutionally setup to compete with the GOP. Why that is has a few different ideas swirling about, but it seems fairly obviously true.

Some of the only Democrats, oddly, that I think have a good conception on how to fight are actually the far left, which maybe comes from the fact if you hold those views you understand you have to fight from the get go. But the issue there is that most of America doesn't want the far left, you need middle way Democrats that know how to fight hard at political battles. We don't seem to have em.

[Oexmelin]

Except that Otto isn't saying the problem with the Democrats is insufficient grass roots militancy, it's taking unpopular positions on certain social issues.

Otto has explained what he meant, and I find myself mostly in agreement with him again. I tend to think that ascribing strong ideas to "the American public" that preexist political struggles is a mistake. The political arena is where those ideas gain salience or sharpness. The Republicans largely dominate that space, and impose their own political discourse. Democrats have been deferring to their discursive agenda for so long, I have become half-convinced the Democratic establishement considers it the appropriate way to do politics.

Militancy is but one aspect of that struggle. Republicans have really committed billionaire ideologues, institutions committed to churning out cadres, a propaganda arm, and a very active, rabid base - who are indeed capable of changing the narrative *because* it provides so many half-baked ideas awaiting to be given the same brand of outrage-urgency.

I don't sense that the Democrats have any of these things. One would have hoped that the sense of urgency would be the cheapest to acquire, but seeing the glacial pace of the January 6th commission, it doesn't seem to be the case. If I continuously push for an increase in militancy, it is in the apparently vain hope that pressure from the base would at least urge the Democratic morass to exert pressure upon leadership, the instruments of the presidency, or *some* fucking communication strategy beyond trying to communicate how much you are good friends with your colleagues from the other side. Heck, they are pretty much resigned to losing in the midterms.   

American institutions are indeed under attack. It would be a good idea to communicate that sense to the Democrats, because I don't think they know, or realize. What I insist upon, is that institution must be understood, not simply deferred to. I sense much deference, and not much understanding of the power dynamics at play.

[Oexmelin]

But the issue there is that most of America doesn't want the far left, you need middle way Democrats that know how to fight hard at political battles. We don't seem to have em.
[/quote]

It's quite possible, though most America doesn't want the crazy stuff Republicans peddle either. One of the big difference, I suspect, is that the Democrats spend a lot of effort stiffling their energized base, while Republicans have found a way to benefit from that energy. At times, much to the dismay of the "business Republicans", but they at least understand that it gets them into power.

[crazy canuck]

It is striking to me how quickly people are retreating from the importance of liberal democratic institutions. Not so long ago we were discussing how they were under attack and the importance they have to democracy.

Now we have people who I would normally think were reasonable and intelligent fully endorsing turning their back on those same institutions in order to achieve political goals.

This is how democracy dies.

Incorrect.

People are not saying anyone should turn their back oninstitutiions at all.

They are saying that

A) That is not the only arena that has to be fought, and
B) No matter how non-political we would like them to be, the reality is that they are in fact political in some cases, and hence need to be contested politically, and
C) We need to stop holding them up as some kind of sacred cows, and thinking that if we so much as look at them politically, they will suddenly lose all value as an institution, so we had better just pretend like they are not political because we wish they weren't

I don't think anyone has suggested, or believes for that matter, that we should "turn our back on those institutions". I suspect that not a single person who you are claiming says that would agree that they believe any such thing.

Was there particular posters you had in mind when you claimed that they believed these things you are telling them they believe?

Well, Oex and Sheilbh to be specific. 

It's why I was slightly squeamish about that list of "how to resist" that had as one of its pointers "defend institutions" because I think that's part of the problem. I think liberals identify as believers in institutions v wreckers in the GOP - but that means they are very often defending that have been rampantly politicised instead of contesting them.

This is very scary.  If we have lost someone like Sheilbh then really I see very little hope.

[Oexmelin]

Berkut has rightly identified what that means. This is what I alluded to above with a distinction between being deferential (which leads to political apathy) and having a true understanding of the role of institutions. See the relative silence / apathy concerning Clarence Thomas' political wife, and Thomas' actions as Justice.

Institutions need to be defended because of what they enable politically, not because of their status as institutions. I think Democrats often have a difficulty distinguishing the two, which leads them to be blind to the moment when institutions have effectively been subverted. 

[crazy canuck]

Berkut has rightly identified what that means. This is what I alluded to above with a distinction between being deferential (which leads to political apathy) and having a true understanding of the role of institutions. See the relative silence / apathy concerning Clarence Thomas' political wife, and Thomas' actions as Justice.

Institutions need to be defended because of what they enable politically, not because of their status as institutions. I think Democrats often have a difficulty distinguishing the two, which leads them to be blind to the moment when institutions have effectively been subverted. 

And that is the dangerous view I was referring to. Liberal democratic institutions are not to be defended simply because they provide for the possibility of a potential political outcome you agree with. They are there to enhance the rule of law. Not to enhance or be a political tool for any political party. Those on the left and the right have lost view of this once well understood principle.

The answer to watching the GOP dismantle democratic institutions Is not to join them in building the bonfire.

[Oexmelin]

I spent my professional life studying institutions. I don't think I am losing sight of what they do. But nowhere have I, nor Sheilbh to the best of my knowledge, argued for burning them down. I don't know where you get that.

There are two questions you have to ask yourself.

1) What happens when institutions are subverted? When, say, Congress argues that a candidate for Justice, is unsuitable if it comes from the other party? This is clearly not what was intended. What do you do then? What is the correct course of action?

I believe it is possible that saving the institution of Congress entails pulling the curtain back and calling a spade a spade. But namecalling only gets you so far. What do you do, then?

This isn't about respecting a decision I don't like. It's a clear subversion of the principle behind the nomination procedure. You seem to think that asking that question is akin to burning Congress. It's clearly not the case. But I remain unclear as to what "respecting the institution" looks like, or is supposed to achieve. 

2) The other question you have to answer is, what happens when "respecting the institutions" leads to outcome that are not just "what I would prefer", but again, a clear subversion of the very principles of these institutions. What will happen when electoral commissions entirely fielded with Republicans will refuse to recognize certain results? What would happen when an order from the Commander-in-Chief requests seizing control of ballots?

So far, a lot of the noise coming from the Republicans have suggested they will refuse to recognize certain results. They have seized, legally, control of a number of bodies that will certify these results. Do you believe in the impartiality of the institutions they currently control? What happens if you do not? What happens if you do?

"Respecting the institutions" means nothing if it isn't informed by a clear sense of what these institutions are supposed to be, and supposed to enable. Otherwise, it's empty deference. And it's really dangerous.