Did I kill the blog or was it this extremely depressing post? I don't see how our democracy survives this. On the plus side, we were only close to being a true democracy for a short time anyway.
I continue to think that a mutual dissolution could happen. Other regions want out too, so that they aren't shackled to the coastal elites.
I cannot imagine how California would accept a President DeSantis who won with a minority of votes and some shady electoral business in red states.
That article is concerning, but it seems to be very Michigan-specific. The law apparently requiring explicit partisan balance among poll workers is weird and I've never heard of such a thing anywhere else.
Also the quotes from the clerk at the end indicate that she knows what they're trying to do and doesn't think it'll work.
I hope so. I assume there are similar assaults being planned in every swing state, and I assume we won't really know which ones are effective until after the fact.
5: I'm not sure if the goal is to cheat, or to sow chaos. I guess it's probably both.
The assault in Pennsylvania is to let the state legislature decide where the electoral college votes go regardless of the popular vote.
5: The goal is voter suppression. They're targeting African American districts in Detroit to tip the state. In 2016, Detroit had low(ish) turnout that meant the state went red, as those votes are desperately needed to outweigh the gun nuts and militias.
I lived (and voted) in Detroit for 15 years and this topic invariably makes my blood boil. These days, I live in Flint, which mercifully has NOT been targeted, and I've worked as an election worker here (doing the electronic poll book) since 2020.
I could rant for days but the most relevant things I noticed were:
1. Only white people tried to vote twice-- by mail and in person. Some were idiots who believed Trump when he told them the system was so vulnerable that Democrats would be voting twice so they should do it too. Another was a courtly old veteran who showed up in uniform and didn't press it when we told him that our records showed that he had received a mail-in ballot. I think he was genuinely concerned but was reassured by the time he left. He was NOT interested in filling out a statement swearing that he had not received a ballot.
2. Black people don't try to vote without proper ID. I told this to a (black) friend and he laughed and told me that voting without ID was a strictly white privilege. Black people knew better than to try. In Michigan, if you are willing to sign an affidavit swearing that you are who you say you are, you can vote without ID, though this may be changing. This is something that happens VERY RARELY. Some of the white people voting without ID struck me as sketchy and some didn't. I lose my wallet regularly and voted without ID myself in a primary once so I know it happens.
I'd prefer Republican election workers to poll watchers-- they might actually learn something. I worry far more about Republican appointees to the Wayne County board of Canvassers. Also, challenges to signatures on mail in ballots. I actually would prefer using Georgia's method of using diver's licence numbers or the last 4 numbers of one's social security number to establish identity on mail in ballots. Unlike signatures, numbers are clear and unambiguous.
You should see how some people write their sevens.
I could easily be the poster child for white election incompetence-- yes, I cross my sevens. Still, they are less arbitrary than my signature, which changes with the weather.
My signature looks like "M______ H______" in cursive.
Peep at 1 comes close to asking the question that's bothering me, which is: is there realistically any way back for the United States that doesn't involve another civil war?
I both totally understand what makes you ask that question, and don't believe that an actual war is likely at all. But I have no real sense of what's actually likely.
12, 13: The other letters are a bit indistinct if what I'm saying.
I kinda think chris is presenting civil war as the hopeful scenario -- the only way back. But in any event, that isn't going to happen because people like me aren't going to pick up guns.
I have mentioned before that there is a lot of commentary that takes the form, "If X doesn't happen, then there is no hope," with X being some wildly unlikely thing like civil war or convicting Trump or US states declaring independence or the Democrats winning over racist voters without alienating minorities. I have pointed out that these constructions can be simplified: "There is no hope."
So the question becomes, how do we think and behave in this hopeless situation? Peep has one correct answer in 1 -- we adopt a bit of historical perspective. Dahlia Lithwick here grapples with the problem with some success. She discusses Hannah Arendt and quotes Howard Zinn:
To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places -- and there are so many -- where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.
Good point, but you can buy a decent crossbow for a couple hundred dollars.
17-18, QED, even without any handwriting
I mean Republicans aren't having much trouble increasing their vote share with minorities while holding the racist vote, so I don't see why Democrats couldn't do the same.
The big problem is that we have a constitution that was ahead of its time, but is ultimately not a workable form of government. Presidential systems suck, bicameral systems suck, powerful Supreme Courts suck, the electoral college sucks, partisan redistricting sucks, basically the whole thing is bad. But you also can't amend it. That's the unsolvable problem here.
That was me.
You were at the Constitutional Convention?
19: Yes, as I see it, there aren't enough people on our side that will take up arms for there to be an actual civil war. But what will happen if the Republicans do manage to "win" the Presidency by outright cheating -- for example, as in 7, they clearly lose the popular vote in a state(s), and the state legislature(s) overrules the voters -- what happens then? That is a scenario in which I can envision states deciding to leave the Union.
Is it time to actually game out the secession scenarios, for those of you imagining them? I'm not good with this sort of thing, but if anyone else wants to play, my two main questions are a) what happens to the military? and b) what happens to foreign policy, including "what do other countries do?" and "how are diplomatic relations between the seceded states and GOPland?" Please take this exercise very seriously.
That is a scenario in which I can envision states deciding to leave the Union.
And if they don't, we're screwed.
What if we keep our corn farm in a red state?
28: We actually have a precedent for states deciding to leave the union, which chris cited in 15. The practical consequences are well-documented.
I can see some more intermediate scenarios after a soft presidential coup. I thought some of this would comeunder Trump but federal paralysis prevailed. By some combination of executive and judicial fiat, a lot of the social safety net is torn down, and the solid blue states rebuild it with their own resources. We have standoffs over enforcement actions between federal police and local governments/crowds, like under the Fugitive Slave Act. A tense situation with no federal legitimacy and no clear way out, but not war either.
I do think things have changed, not least that there are blocks of red states that want out of the union and blocks of blue states that want out of the union. I'm pretty sure there's at least some mutual will towards dissolution.
The other thing I hate about the "BUT THE CIVIL WAR" argument is that there were two wars of dissolution in American history. One is thought to have gone pretty well and we are generally real happy about it. California's actual complaint is 'taxation without representation' and yet everyone says 'this is just like treason in defense of slavery'.
solid blue states
State lines are arbitrary, though. The division isn't red states versus blue states; that's just an artifact of our Rube Goldberg election system. The division is cities versus outlying areas. In NC, the GOP-controlled state assembly has been openly at war with Democratic municipal governments for over a decade now. A breakdown large enough for states to start seceding might go fractal down the scale.
34.2: I was making no value judgment about the merit of wars of dissolution, but for the record: I'm OK with the first one and strongly believe the second one should have been fought once the South decided to secede. If California decides to secede, California will lose, regardless of the merits of its cause. That state is positioned more like the South and less like the 13 colonies.
When the time for civil war comes, Republicans -- for the first time in more than a century -- will truly recognize their heritage as the Party of Lincoln.
California stands out by being 95% urban, so at this point its red hinterlands would be completely overwhelmed. Not all blue states are like that though.
There's at least as much successionist rhetoric coming from the Trumpy/QAnons as there is from me. I also don't think that California would win a shooting war. But I do think there's a lot of will towards mutual dissolution. I mean, if it looked likely for the south and California, I'm sure Hawaii would want free and so would Texas and New England might hop on it.
The thing about this degree of polarization is that we're all fucking miserable.
A breakdown large enough for states to start seceding might go fractal down the scale
This is why I stopped watching the new DMZ show less than 15 minutes in. It had an illegal border-crosser (swam the Hudson or something) caged in a big ad-hoc gym setting, getting medically examined, and the sympathetic nurse mentioning the border changing yet again. Yeah, super poignant image of treating Americans like refugees, but if we were in a civil war we'd say "Welcome, fellow American, sorry those dirty rebels gave you a hard time!", not set up a border-worshipping machine with ICE and CBP.
NC has more non-urban population than that, but the overwhelming majority of economic activity goes on in the cities and lots of the rest of the state would be destitute without them.
Yeah. And the rural area sends a huge chunk of its kids to the urban areas. There is no way to split peacefully. Even a best-case would make something like the chaos of 1947 in India.
Petty but volatile situations like this are multiplying in rural California.
On the plus side, this profiled candidate appears to have won re-election with 70% of the vote. (This county is not red; it went for Biden by 15 points.) But in actually-red Shasta, a Republican county supervisor was just recalled for not being insurrectionist/anti-mask enough, and there seems to be some simmer of threat of violence there.
The other thing I hate about the "BUT THE CIVIL WAR" argument is that there were two wars of dissolution in American history. One is thought to have gone pretty well and we are generally real happy about it.
You mean the Revolutionary War? It wasn't as bloody as the Civil War, granted, but it lasted twice as long and involved extensive population displacement (many Loyalists fled to Canada or the Caribbean). Still a far cry from any kind of peaceful dissolution.
43: In an interview with The Times, Gilbert -- who says he will not wear masks because he does not want to be part of a "medical experiment"
Welcome to the control group, dipshit.
The red states are too dependent on federal aid to quit, and any deep red state with a big city has a decent blue chunk that is NOT going to want to stay in a state with no federal protections, and most of the time that chunk is better educated and wealthier.
The thing about this degree of polarization is that we're all fucking miserable.
This is a profound misunderstanding of conservatism that I think is very common among liberals. The absolute last thing conservatives want is to reach a mutually satisfactory accommodation with liberals.
That's why grey rocking works. At least it really worked great at my mom's funeral when my mom's cousin tried to talk to me about vaccination.
50: I am normally derisive of pop psych nostrums, but grey rock is the best thing ever -- an almost literal lifesaver for me when I was executor of my father's estate.
It's pretty much exactly how to deal with younger siblings who are being brats and are too much younger than you for your parents to think it a fair fight.
Did I read correctly that SCOTUS has basically given absolute immunity to federal agents for civil rights violations? At least no decision left some grey area where they might be afraid to act; Now it seems like CBP, ICE, DEA know that they can act with total impunity.
Right, the only way to convince conservatives to play nice and live in harmony is making the other option 'conservatives lose and get owned'.
I think the left has some kind of an understanding that right-wing ideas (pizzagate, etc.) about the left are very frequently projection, but the left does that a lot too, and projects 'politics is for solving problems using evidence' and 'finding a mutually agreeable solution is ideal' onto the right even though that isn't what conservatives want.
"What people see in other is frequently based on what they see in themselves" is a useful psychological trick beyond politics, too.
Polarization is not, in fact, making people more miserable than a shooting war would. If we imagine some kind of peaceful dissolution somehow, in the short term it would make some people happier, but it would also make conservatives in blue states and everyone who isn't rich in red states less happy. In the long term it would only make Russia and China happy, because no one else benefits from the USA being Balkanized into 2 (or 10 or 50 of whatever) separate countries.
It feels like pointing this out is condescending, but apparently it's necessary anyway.
Yes, as I see it, there aren't enough people on our side that will take up arms for there to be an actual civil war.
Yet, were there any cause, in this whole chaos of human struggle, worth a sane man's dying for, and which my death would benefit, then--provided, however, the effort did not involve an unreasonable amount of trouble--methinks I might be bold to offer up my life. If Kossuth, for example, would pitch the battle-field of Hungarian rights within an easy ride of my abode, and choose a mild, sunny morning, after breakfast, for the conflict, Miles Coverdale would gladly be his man, for one brave rush upon the levelled bayonets. Farther than that, I should be loth to pledge myself.
The balancing for how many people will be happier isn't that straightforward. When Roe goes, and a Republican congress under DeSantis moves for a national abortion ban? Reverses gay marriage? It may well be that having some blue nations on this continent are the only places that a less patriarchal society can continue.
Unless we somehow reverse the solidification of minority Republican rule, I don't see how we continue to be a country. I mean, if Trump gets elected by a minority again, are we really going to stand for it? If the answer is 'but there's no mechanism' then we'll have to do something that isn't a currently accepted mechanism.
I don't think DeSantis will even need to cheat to win.
I don't see either capital in California, or on the rest of the country, letting California leave. And I think that sort of talk, or other various fantasies, takes momentum away from the actual answer, which is mobilizing voters in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
(The actual correct answer is annexing Canada, but those damn Canadians are too selfish to let go of their mounties, in return for saving humanity. So, we're fucked.)
A failed attempt to conquer Canada was another feature of the Revolutionary War. These things aren't easy!
We've all gone to parades to celebrate failed invasions of Canada.
and strongly believe the second one should have been fought once the South decided to secede.
This reminds me of something I've wondered about -- were there Northern Republicans in 1860-61 making the Megan-type argument that secession is great - we don't want to be in a country with them anyway?
I think it was northern copperhead Democrats who made that argument.
63: I just read the wikipedia article about northern copperhead Democrats and they seem more like Southern sympathizers. I'm wondering about people with the Republican free labor ideology that hated slave society, but didn't care much about the enslaved humans.
My guess is that the number of people thinking that was small enough that their voices were drowned out by southern sympathizers who were lying.
I'm only up to the Panic of 1857 in Battle Cry of Freedom, but at least at that point that sort of attitude doesn't seem to have been a big thing in the North. Southerners were already frequently threatening secession if they didn't get their way, but Northern Republicans mostly thought they were bluffing.
but Northern Republicans mostly thought they were bluffing.
Just like we think about Megan now.
There were Northern Republicans who advocated "let them go in peace" policies. But they changed their tune very quickly after the firing on Ft. Sumter. Probably mostly for political reasons, but whatever.
The Democrats adopted a peace plank in their party platform before the 1864 election, which that spring and summer seemed like a good bet. And then Atlanta fell, and McClellan was fucked. That guy had pretty much uniformly terrible timing.
were there Northern Republicans in 1860-61 making the Megan-type argument that secession is great - we don't want to be in a country with them anyway?
I looked up what William Lloyd Garrison, early advocate of northern secession, was doing during the Civil War - summaries for that part of his life are laconic but it seems he was still criticizing the Constitution while also supporting Abraham Lincoln's war policies overall. So my guess is that those kinds of Republicans had mostly by then come to see that making the whole country slavery-free was possible.
California: Turning ladder-pulling into the foundational myth.
68: Thanks! I was hoping you would offer your expertise.
"for political reasons" -- was it that after Ft. Sumter there was a lot of anger at the South? Was it mostly that they anticipated a quick victory?
71: That's interesting, because he claimed to be a pacifist, right?
Wouldn't say what I'm doing is exactly bluffing. I have exactly no means to bring dissolution about and I'm not threatening to perform any. And those are my consistent genuine preferences, futile or not.
I think you have to lob shells at an island off South Carolina.
That Miles Coverdale link sent me down the archival rabbit hole. Brisket! BBQ! Looking at the comments on other posts in that period was a fun nostalgic blast. Lots of explicit analogies used in the But You're Not post about some men not wanting sex post childbirth because they're now squicked. I do think that the complete archives would be a pretty good desert island item.
Never imply that I am insincere about wanting to break away from this fucking mess of a country.
I found full scans of The Liberator are readily available online. His own words in early 1861, such as a brief message on Feb. 1 are pretty broad, speaking of ends rather than means, and his remarks on the execution of John Brown in 1859 are similar, but what he printed in the paper (mostly reprints) seems pretty standard Northern abolitionist fare, "don't be cowards, stand up to the Southern traitors," even one bit in January discussing South Carolina's weak economy and dependence on imports, not exactly saying "we can crush them" but heavily implying it.
As the decision in 53 shows, the only path back involves people who are more competent than Nicholas Roske.
I guess, less violently, we could hope for a Thomas death of natural causes combined with an inexplicable resignation from Roberts. But I think it's literally the case that SCOTUS is so radicalized and so young that, no matter what voters do, American democracy will be in tatters before any of its work can be undone. 2020 featured lots of long-shot bankshots to get around this, but Cal Cunningham is a fool and Maine voters are morons, and that was that. Best-case election outcomes in '22 and '24 likely won't matter.
It will matter greatly, but won't by itself put things right. The difference is key.
Maybe Megan and I should become reservists in the California State Guard. That could be a resource if shit goes down.
Heh. When I first joined Unfogged, I was willing to be in the front lines if it meant I could blow up TSA stations at airports. I'm a lot less energetic these days.
Now there's TSA Pre-check, but you've got to pay like $80 first.
I am not going to pay $80 to blow up a TSA station. If I'm rushing the barricades, I'm ignoring the fees.