I am someone who shares Mr. Hubbell's belief that things are far better than they seem. But I do not call it "optimism" but rather rationality. The endless focus on relatively minor differences among Democrats obscures the far more radical split in the GOP--between blind followers of Donald Trump and those who do not subscribe to his provable--if not quite certifiable--madness. While I share Robert's concern about the need to drive turnout by running scared, we shouldn't overdo the pessimism. I know (and know of) MANY former Republicans who regard Trump and his "ideas" as anathema. Does anyone know ANYONE who voted for Biden this past November and is now a sure vote for a Republican?
Although we incessantly read about former white working class Democrats now firmly in Trump's thrall, EVERY ONE of them was part of the astounding 74 million votes Trump got this past November. This cadre is shrinking due to the statistically meaningful minority of 2020 Trump voters who do not subscribe to the Big Lie and the negative demographic trends among Trump's cohort. Conversely, the 81 million Democratic voters are almost exclusively found in expanding slices of the electorate. Now just make two modest assumptions: a reasonably competent performance by Biden and the continued determination of Democratic voters to eradicate all vestiges of Donald Trump.
This quote matches a thread ever-strong woven through your reports that are seasoned with admonitions for hope, with no room for complacency but rather, action! And you provide, with help from readers, fine links and resources for channeling that energetic action, for good, for the health of our democracy.
Thank you for your wise and optimistic counsel, Robert: what a great way to start the day! I become more and more aware of Manchin’s selfishness every day and ultimately, he will not prevail, simply because world opinion about climate change will defeat him. I did write to the President, and feel much better for having done so. Now for the hard part, Greensboro’s City Council and mayoral races . . . Thank you again.
Consent of the governed? Yes. But also consent to the governed changing their minds. Trump, like many leaders, is fine with free elections--once. So it's not just consent of the governed, but the second (and third, and so on) election that counts.
As for Joe Manchin, this week the most important thing is to convince him that if he does not want to wind up in history alongside Aaron Burr, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, he has to agree to a carve-out from the filibuster for voting (and, I hope, civil) rights.
Thank you for providing your calming encouragement that is hope! I thought this quote, highlights your edict that our future is up to us through action, appropriate.
“We don’t want to be seen as victims. We want to be seen as who we are, as people who fight and protect themselves, rather than expecting to be saved.”
Eka Aghdgomelashvili, WISG, Georgia, from the docu-series “Fundamental: Gender Justice. No Exceptions.”
Not that I've been able to persuade people, but I have three suggestions for the Supreme Court.
1. Expand the Supreme Court to 11 members, not 13. Expansion would be to right the wrong of the Republican Senate refusing to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland. Had the nomination been considered, the court would be 5-4 instead of 6-3 in favor of Republican nominees. An 11 member Court would be 6-5 in favor of Republican nominees. That change would increase confidence in the Court rather than diminish it.
2. Add seats in the Appeals and District Courts which are understaffed. Although this would give Joe Biden additional nominations, this is providing sufficient staff in understaffed courts and is not a political decision.
3. Instead of attempting a change that requires a constitutional amendment such as creating 18 year term limits for Supreme Court Justices, set by statute a minimum age for new appointees to the Supreme Court. A minimum age of 62 would mean that most members of the US Supreme Court would complete 18 years in their early 80s - not a bad time to retire.
Thanks for the pithy depiction of Joe Manchin. Very helpful. As ever, you remind us all to counter our anxiety with work for democracy. And it is SO important to remember how far we have come!
I am someone who shares Mr. Hubbell's belief that things are far better than they seem. But I do not call it "optimism" but rather rationality. The endless focus on relatively minor differences among Democrats obscures the far more radical split in the GOP--between blind followers of Donald Trump and those who do not subscribe to his provable--if not quite certifiable--madness. While I share Robert's concern about the need to drive turnout by running scared, we shouldn't overdo the pessimism. I know (and know of) MANY former Republicans who regard Trump and his "ideas" as anathema. Does anyone know ANYONE who voted for Biden this past November and is now a sure vote for a Republican?
Although we incessantly read about former white working class Democrats now firmly in Trump's thrall, EVERY ONE of them was part of the astounding 74 million votes Trump got this past November. This cadre is shrinking due to the statistically meaningful minority of 2020 Trump voters who do not subscribe to the Big Lie and the negative demographic trends among Trump's cohort. Conversely, the 81 million Democratic voters are almost exclusively found in expanding slices of the electorate. Now just make two modest assumptions: a reasonably competent performance by Biden and the continued determination of Democratic voters to eradicate all vestiges of Donald Trump.
Voting rights and Supreme Court reform, two hugely important issues. Thank you for your balanced perspective Conclusions.
This quote matches a thread ever-strong woven through your reports that are seasoned with admonitions for hope, with no room for complacency but rather, action! And you provide, with help from readers, fine links and resources for channeling that energetic action, for good, for the health of our democracy.
“Action is the antithesis of anxiety” — 3:20 mark
file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/54/04/8A427222-79CE-49C8-8743-E775DE5CB8D3/IMG_4806.jpeg
Thank you for your wise and optimistic counsel, Robert: what a great way to start the day! I become more and more aware of Manchin’s selfishness every day and ultimately, he will not prevail, simply because world opinion about climate change will defeat him. I did write to the President, and feel much better for having done so. Now for the hard part, Greensboro’s City Council and mayoral races . . . Thank you again.
Consent of the governed? Yes. But also consent to the governed changing their minds. Trump, like many leaders, is fine with free elections--once. So it's not just consent of the governed, but the second (and third, and so on) election that counts.
As for Joe Manchin, this week the most important thing is to convince him that if he does not want to wind up in history alongside Aaron Burr, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, he has to agree to a carve-out from the filibuster for voting (and, I hope, civil) rights.
Thank you for providing your calming encouragement that is hope! I thought this quote, highlights your edict that our future is up to us through action, appropriate.
“We don’t want to be seen as victims. We want to be seen as who we are, as people who fight and protect themselves, rather than expecting to be saved.”
Eka Aghdgomelashvili, WISG, Georgia, from the docu-series “Fundamental: Gender Justice. No Exceptions.”
Not that I've been able to persuade people, but I have three suggestions for the Supreme Court.
1. Expand the Supreme Court to 11 members, not 13. Expansion would be to right the wrong of the Republican Senate refusing to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland. Had the nomination been considered, the court would be 5-4 instead of 6-3 in favor of Republican nominees. An 11 member Court would be 6-5 in favor of Republican nominees. That change would increase confidence in the Court rather than diminish it.
2. Add seats in the Appeals and District Courts which are understaffed. Although this would give Joe Biden additional nominations, this is providing sufficient staff in understaffed courts and is not a political decision.
3. Instead of attempting a change that requires a constitutional amendment such as creating 18 year term limits for Supreme Court Justices, set by statute a minimum age for new appointees to the Supreme Court. A minimum age of 62 would mean that most members of the US Supreme Court would complete 18 years in their early 80s - not a bad time to retire.
Thanks for the pithy depiction of Joe Manchin. Very helpful. As ever, you remind us all to counter our anxiety with work for democracy. And it is SO important to remember how far we have come!