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.
Love that quote! Absolutely true. I never feel better than when I am writing letters to voters or (excruciatingly) working a phone bank for a democratic cause!
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.
I wish I could agree that Manchin can be convinced of anything! He obviously thinks that his interests trump those of the other Democrats or the country itself. I wonder what Biden got in return for zapping the clean energy part of build back better. If he didn't then why capitulate? Can't we just ignore Manchin unless it's absolutely necessary? He's a festering sore on the body politic!
Unfortunately, in a 50-50 Senate, with no--not one--Republican willing to deal reasonably with the issues that confront the nation, we cannot ignore Manchin.
Mitt has always talked a good game, but when push comes to shove, he falls in line and votes with the other Republicans. I expect nothing from him and know he's not a Profile in Courage!
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.
All good suggestions. I like the minimum age requirement. We might also consider imposing an experience requirement -- like ten years as a judge in state or federal court. But I would increase the Court to 13. If the Republicans are ever in a position to increase the size of the Court again, so be it. Nine is too small, as was demonstrated by the 15 years that Justice Kennedy was personally responsible for determining the political and social agenda in the U.S. If there are more justices, there will be more diversity of opinion and fewer decisions determined by a single justice. Another thought: Provide that the Court can resolve an issue only if 70% of the Justices agree 100% with the result (i.e., no partial concurrences, etc).
I wouldn't quarrel with the idea of a larger court. A response to that need would be to time the further increase so that the court is increased to 12 in 2025 and to 13 in 2029. I would quarrel with an experience requirement that eliminated legal academics and practicing politicians. Earl Warren comes to mind. On the other hand, maybe he is more than offset by Roger Taney and William Rehnquist.
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.
I wish I had written that. Thanks, Roger!
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
My "concluding thought" for this evening!
Love that quote! Absolutely true. I never feel better than when I am writing letters to voters or (excruciatingly) working a phone bank for a democratic cause!
Exhortation would be a better term over admonition… Please excuse me.
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.
Yes! Go for it!
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.
I wish I could agree that Manchin can be convinced of anything! He obviously thinks that his interests trump those of the other Democrats or the country itself. I wonder what Biden got in return for zapping the clean energy part of build back better. If he didn't then why capitulate? Can't we just ignore Manchin unless it's absolutely necessary? He's a festering sore on the body politic!
Unfortunately, in a 50-50 Senate, with no--not one--Republican willing to deal reasonably with the issues that confront the nation, we cannot ignore Manchin.
What the hell happened to Mitt Romney? I thought he was one of the decent ones? What is is motivation for marching in lock step with the GOP?
Mitt has always talked a good game, but when push comes to shove, he falls in line and votes with the other Republicans. I expect nothing from him and know he's not a Profile in Courage!
Yes, it was just wishful thinking since you are absolutely right!
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.
All good suggestions. I like the minimum age requirement. We might also consider imposing an experience requirement -- like ten years as a judge in state or federal court. But I would increase the Court to 13. If the Republicans are ever in a position to increase the size of the Court again, so be it. Nine is too small, as was demonstrated by the 15 years that Justice Kennedy was personally responsible for determining the political and social agenda in the U.S. If there are more justices, there will be more diversity of opinion and fewer decisions determined by a single justice. Another thought: Provide that the Court can resolve an issue only if 70% of the Justices agree 100% with the result (i.e., no partial concurrences, etc).
I wouldn't quarrel with the idea of a larger court. A response to that need would be to time the further increase so that the court is increased to 12 in 2025 and to 13 in 2029. I would quarrel with an experience requirement that eliminated legal academics and practicing politicians. Earl Warren comes to mind. On the other hand, maybe he is more than offset by Roger Taney and William Rehnquist.
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!