I read with great joy your top reader email from Steve Gerstman regarding a third party.
I know conventional wisdom says third parties cannot succeed in the USA, but that perspective is based on the way things were, not the way things are.
It's important to understand that a third party is not just a vehicle for organizing candidates and votes. In today's world, party affiliation has become something of a tribal affiliation, laden with connotations and implications far beyond the pure politics.
The binary nature of today's choice in party affiliation leaves those of us who don't simply want to root for a sports team but actually care about policies and the tenets of democracy out in the cold. We are forced make a Hobbesian choice between a feckless broad coalition with a very irritating and unpleasant left wing of activists, and a party that is going so far off the deep end that it is unrecognizable to anybody with clear eyes.
A third party would give us something to rally around. You can call it a tribe if you want. Whatever it is, we need one now.
Why aren’t conservatives breaking from the currently-dangerous Republican party and starting a new national party for conservatives and moderates who accept the rule of law and care about the future of the Republic?
Steve, will you deny moderate Democrats who are not part of AOC's crowd a place in the new party? I ask, because you make no mention of anyone who is not a disenchanted Republican in your otherwise thoughtful idea. Or are you only seeking to include those former GOPers who believe in conserving what the GOP under Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes propagated?
I can't speak for Steve, but as someone who has pushed for a third party for a while now I believe the coalition should definitely include disaffected Democrats who are tired of fighting with the left wing of their party.
Initially, it may be tactically advantageous for a new party to be right of center to ensure that the crazy people don't take over the asylum. But long-term, it should evolve into a faithful opposition party, and increase the size of its tent accordingly. Hopefully, what's left of the Republican party becomes a rump party of right-wing cranks and doesn't command more than 20% of the vote.
If that occurs, the new party will have to move a bit to the left to be competitive with the Democrats. As a lifelong independent, I would certainly welcome anybody who believes in democracy because what's at stake is bigger than any one policy debate.
First, we save democracy. Then we can quibble about the details.
Florida (as usual) is a textbook case of Banana Republican hypocrisy. Last year Gov. Ron Desantis pushed through anti-riot laws which potentially could be used to stifle legitimate peaceful protests and demonstrations.
Because of some unfortunate temporary traffic blockages during BLM protests the legislature took time to signal its opposition to peaceful protesters disrupting traffic. One provision even gave motorists the "right" to ram protesters with their vehicles if the protesters were blocking traffic and the motorist "felt threatened". They would be immune from civil or criminal prosecution. A sort of vehicular stand your ground law.
Last year Cuban protesters shut down several expressways in solidarity with the protests of Cuban dissidents in Cuba. (I am still wondering how shutting down an expressway in Florida is supposed to win friends and influence people for Cuba but hey, Florida!) Nothing was enforced (because the law was on hold in Federal Court) But DeSantis merely suggested the Cuban protesters "please" not shut down highways--- but otherwise because of Cuban allegiance to the GOP probably would not have been dealt with by law enforcement nor would motorists be permitted to run them down.
Predictably Governor DeSantis issued statements of support for the Canadian Trucker blockade. A blockade that would be illegal in Florida under the very laws he promulgated.
And THAT is the Banana Republican Party in a nutshell. The party of law and order except when it isn't convenient to be so.
I have to disagree somewhat with Sam Gerston. While I do agree that the approach of true conservatives forming a new party, that is a longer term solution. I think that the best approach for the immediate is for these people to vote D in the general election. Until the Rs are totally in a minority governing position they will continue down "the road to authoritarianism".
Thank you for your post, Julia. I, too, am discouraged that we’re seemingly not thinking about the extra vulnerable, and we ALL have friends or family who are for some medical reason. As an example, my Sunday school class, which prides itself on being welcoming, has a high percentage of non-maskers. These are nice people, but their choice makes it too risky for some members to attend. This is just not being our best selves.
I’m watching the Super Bowl pregame show. I know many are happy seeing so many celebs maskless in the boxes. I’m horrified. I live 2 counties away. I expect our omicron and BA2 numbers to rise again. The case numbers have dropped SLIGHTLY in the last 2 weeks. The death count, a lagging indicator, is still rising. I’m not a happy viewer right now.
Thank you Cathy. I’ve read the Twitter feeds of blue checks such as Nate Silver and others. I want to scream! As a math nerd myself, I want to shout at Nate “do you have a spectrum disorder?How can you be so clueless?”
However, I realize for many people; they are exhausted. They are tired of the disruptions.Unfortunately, even some of the historians are forgetting; it was during and after the 1918 pandemic that the study and embrace of eugenics really escalated. This was true here and in Europe. We forget this though at our peril. Not just for those at high risk, but those in the “out groups”. I wish those who still can empathize through the fatigue would make the connections.
"But one suspects that Hannity et al would have a rather different view of the situation had the bridge been seized by, say, BLM activists."
Nope. Not at all. And it ticks me off reading this hogwash. And I am not a big Hannity fan.
Hannity would have a different view of the situation had the privately-owned cars and trucks on the bridge been destroyed by the "protestors" and the private citizens pulled from them and beaten to death as in what the BLM (Buying Large Mansions) "protestors" had done.
True conservative Republicans support all forms of free speech including peaceful civil disobedience. And they are absolutely supportive of peaceful protest against the abusive and tyrannical policies of government.
The vaccine mandates and the Canadian government actions against those deciding their own individual choice to not allow a novel and poorly tested drug to be injected into their bodies, most for very valid medical reasons like the fact that they already had COVID and have circulating antibodies, are the epitome of tyrannical abuses of power.
Liberal progressives, even those who are but claim to be some form of Republican, are showing their true stripes here. If this was a repeat of Tiennaman Square, they would be rooting for the tank.
I think it is good for you and others to read comments outside of your bubble of comfort... especially since it is a bubble filled with a lot of toxic gas.
Interesting that there is no thoughtful response only that I should take my views somewhere else where they belong. Think about that.
He didn't tell you to go somewhere else. He did imply that your oversimplified analysis might get ridiculed on these boards. BTW, that "novel and poorly tested drug" has been injected in over 4.2 billion people.
Why yes, I expect that. I also expect that some who are reading are learning much about the ridiculers. I don't comment trolling for likes. That would be a sign of childish wants... and likely identify some personal insecurities.
When you mock the BLM movement as Buying Large Mansions you tell us who you are. Both sides have had violent protestors within their ranks. The difference is Hannity and Fox News would call the violence carried out by whites as patriotic.
Regardless of how you feel about unions, am I the only one that sees some very dark irony in the fact that the political party that spent a majority of my lifespan destroying unions is now all in on the idea of blue collar labor organizing and coalescing together?
“Let’s do that but not call it a union, because unions are just big, corrupt bureaucracies.” Instead they’ll be absolutely no cohesive messaging, none of the benefits of unionizing and rather than paying dues we’ll send PayPals to Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Instead of the union bosses getting rich it will be Ivy League politicians hustling us out of money we can’t really afford to spare. That sounds way better! Blah blah blah, but socialism…
Yes, deeply ironic. However the Banana Republican Ivy League elites want their right to work wage slaves to substitute the GOP for union membership. Because, blah, blah, blah, but socialism.
The marginalization and destruction of unions is the necessary first step to prevent workers from believing that they have agency through collective bargaining. To belong to a union is a deprivation of your freedom--- your right to work for less.
When Nikki Haley was Governor in South Carolina she did everything she could to keep unions out. She went so far as to say she would not support tax incentives for any industry considering moving to South Carolina that had decent relationships with unions. Companies on friendly terms with unions would "Poison the well" she said.
. . .Michael Gerson writes in the Wapo, “Support for seditious acts is now a normal and accepted element of Republican identity.”
The animating spirit on the right is identical to that of vandalism. Destruction of the ideals on which this nation was built is the order of the day. And any vision of a new construction that would justify the razing of the Republic is entirely absent. At bottom, I see nothing but a childish tantrum.
It's odd that Charlie claims to understand what Jim Crow was when he gleefully supported men like Reagan and R. Johnson who claimed it had no lasting impact
The essence of Jim Crow laws has always been to take advantage of U.S. Constitutional "lacunae" in order to re-impose white supremacy.
Historically, the particular lacunae were the definitions of equal treatment of citizens under law, and the separation of federal and state powers. Poll taxes and literacy tests applied to "everyone." Those laws relating to racial segregation, white primaries, etc. were ratified by Supreme Court decisions over the years as "separate but equal" and as valid exercises of state authority. Racial violence was effectively considered a problem of state policing.
So, it's a mistake to solely associate Jim Crow with visible racially segregated public facilities and schools. Its essential feature is any effort to legally mandate racial supremacy within the interstices of constitutional law. It's the effect, however narrowly construed, that counts.
By applying the notion of states rights over the mechanics of voting, this very conservative Supreme Court seems well along the way to repeating past courts (with the honorable exception of the Warren Court) by defining down the meaning of political maps drawn to favor on race, and laws in urban black neighborhoods, etc. that disadvantage minority voters and representation.
If you don't want to call it Jim Crow, then at least invent another invidious meme.
Yes, it does. The SCOTUS has gutted the VRA and thus some Jim Crowian voting restrictions are legal. The SCOTUS argued that laws with a racist impact are fine as long as they are not explicitly racist in their language
Hi, I am one of the those anti-war protesters! In 2003, I joined an anti-war organization in (gasp) Berkeley, California. I also subscribe to the Intercept, and they are very anti-war still. Unlike the far right, their focus is on warmongering arms dealers and other corporate entities that profit from war whom they believe are chomping at the bit to start a new war. 20 years and a college degree in History later, I see things differently.
I think Russia invading Ukraine would be on the level of WW II inducing aggression, but I really don’t think Russian billionaires want a world war. Rich people want stability, and many, many Russian oligarchs own property here. Weirdly, the thing I hate the most might prevent a world war. Unlike World War II, we are much more financially intertwined. So while I find Russia’s posturing unsettling, Ukraine (unlike Georgia) would trigger responses the Russian kleptocracy would not want. So I hate war, but also understand how capitalism has made us safer because it makes us financially intertwined.
I read with great joy your top reader email from Steve Gerstman regarding a third party.
I know conventional wisdom says third parties cannot succeed in the USA, but that perspective is based on the way things were, not the way things are.
It's important to understand that a third party is not just a vehicle for organizing candidates and votes. In today's world, party affiliation has become something of a tribal affiliation, laden with connotations and implications far beyond the pure politics.
The binary nature of today's choice in party affiliation leaves those of us who don't simply want to root for a sports team but actually care about policies and the tenets of democracy out in the cold. We are forced make a Hobbesian choice between a feckless broad coalition with a very irritating and unpleasant left wing of activists, and a party that is going so far off the deep end that it is unrecognizable to anybody with clear eyes.
A third party would give us something to rally around. You can call it a tribe if you want. Whatever it is, we need one now.
Steve Gerstman writes:
Why aren’t conservatives breaking from the currently-dangerous Republican party and starting a new national party for conservatives and moderates who accept the rule of law and care about the future of the Republic?
Steve, will you deny moderate Democrats who are not part of AOC's crowd a place in the new party? I ask, because you make no mention of anyone who is not a disenchanted Republican in your otherwise thoughtful idea. Or are you only seeking to include those former GOPers who believe in conserving what the GOP under Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes propagated?
I can't speak for Steve, but as someone who has pushed for a third party for a while now I believe the coalition should definitely include disaffected Democrats who are tired of fighting with the left wing of their party.
Initially, it may be tactically advantageous for a new party to be right of center to ensure that the crazy people don't take over the asylum. But long-term, it should evolve into a faithful opposition party, and increase the size of its tent accordingly. Hopefully, what's left of the Republican party becomes a rump party of right-wing cranks and doesn't command more than 20% of the vote.
If that occurs, the new party will have to move a bit to the left to be competitive with the Democrats. As a lifelong independent, I would certainly welcome anybody who believes in democracy because what's at stake is bigger than any one policy debate.
First, we save democracy. Then we can quibble about the details.
Florida (as usual) is a textbook case of Banana Republican hypocrisy. Last year Gov. Ron Desantis pushed through anti-riot laws which potentially could be used to stifle legitimate peaceful protests and demonstrations.
Because of some unfortunate temporary traffic blockages during BLM protests the legislature took time to signal its opposition to peaceful protesters disrupting traffic. One provision even gave motorists the "right" to ram protesters with their vehicles if the protesters were blocking traffic and the motorist "felt threatened". They would be immune from civil or criminal prosecution. A sort of vehicular stand your ground law.
Last year Cuban protesters shut down several expressways in solidarity with the protests of Cuban dissidents in Cuba. (I am still wondering how shutting down an expressway in Florida is supposed to win friends and influence people for Cuba but hey, Florida!) Nothing was enforced (because the law was on hold in Federal Court) But DeSantis merely suggested the Cuban protesters "please" not shut down highways--- but otherwise because of Cuban allegiance to the GOP probably would not have been dealt with by law enforcement nor would motorists be permitted to run them down.
Predictably Governor DeSantis issued statements of support for the Canadian Trucker blockade. A blockade that would be illegal in Florida under the very laws he promulgated.
And THAT is the Banana Republican Party in a nutshell. The party of law and order except when it isn't convenient to be so.
And those same Trumpettes have called for the Super Bowl to be disrupted. Not to mention Rand Paul saying the same thing.
I have to disagree somewhat with Sam Gerston. While I do agree that the approach of true conservatives forming a new party, that is a longer term solution. I think that the best approach for the immediate is for these people to vote D in the general election. Until the Rs are totally in a minority governing position they will continue down "the road to authoritarianism".
Thank you for your post, Julia. I, too, am discouraged that we’re seemingly not thinking about the extra vulnerable, and we ALL have friends or family who are for some medical reason. As an example, my Sunday school class, which prides itself on being welcoming, has a high percentage of non-maskers. These are nice people, but their choice makes it too risky for some members to attend. This is just not being our best selves.
I’m watching the Super Bowl pregame show. I know many are happy seeing so many celebs maskless in the boxes. I’m horrified. I live 2 counties away. I expect our omicron and BA2 numbers to rise again. The case numbers have dropped SLIGHTLY in the last 2 weeks. The death count, a lagging indicator, is still rising. I’m not a happy viewer right now.
Thank you Cathy. I’ve read the Twitter feeds of blue checks such as Nate Silver and others. I want to scream! As a math nerd myself, I want to shout at Nate “do you have a spectrum disorder?How can you be so clueless?”
However, I realize for many people; they are exhausted. They are tired of the disruptions.Unfortunately, even some of the historians are forgetting; it was during and after the 1918 pandemic that the study and embrace of eugenics really escalated. This was true here and in Europe. We forget this though at our peril. Not just for those at high risk, but those in the “out groups”. I wish those who still can empathize through the fatigue would make the connections.
"But one suspects that Hannity et al would have a rather different view of the situation had the bridge been seized by, say, BLM activists."
Nope. Not at all. And it ticks me off reading this hogwash. And I am not a big Hannity fan.
Hannity would have a different view of the situation had the privately-owned cars and trucks on the bridge been destroyed by the "protestors" and the private citizens pulled from them and beaten to death as in what the BLM (Buying Large Mansions) "protestors" had done.
True conservative Republicans support all forms of free speech including peaceful civil disobedience. And they are absolutely supportive of peaceful protest against the abusive and tyrannical policies of government.
The vaccine mandates and the Canadian government actions against those deciding their own individual choice to not allow a novel and poorly tested drug to be injected into their bodies, most for very valid medical reasons like the fact that they already had COVID and have circulating antibodies, are the epitome of tyrannical abuses of power.
Liberal progressives, even those who are but claim to be some form of Republican, are showing their true stripes here. If this was a repeat of Tiennaman Square, they would be rooting for the tank.
I think you meant to post this on VDare or Daily Stormer.
I think it is good for you and others to read comments outside of your bubble of comfort... especially since it is a bubble filled with a lot of toxic gas.
Interesting that there is no thoughtful response only that I should take my views somewhere else where they belong. Think about that.
He didn't tell you to go somewhere else. He did imply that your oversimplified analysis might get ridiculed on these boards. BTW, that "novel and poorly tested drug" has been injected in over 4.2 billion people.
"Ridiculed on these boards"
Why yes, I expect that. I also expect that some who are reading are learning much about the ridiculers. I don't comment trolling for likes. That would be a sign of childish wants... and likely identify some personal insecurities.
Someone who writes "Buying Large Mansions" is motivated worthy of a deeper response because they are trafficking in racist imagery.
Sure Paul. Everyone that had a point outside of your narrow political views is racist. Got it.
If the hood fits 🤔 Frank
When you mock the BLM movement as Buying Large Mansions you tell us who you are. Both sides have had violent protestors within their ranks. The difference is Hannity and Fox News would call the violence carried out by whites as patriotic.
Nope. Wrong. They would not call any violence patriotic. Hannity condemned the Jan-6 riot.
The Buying Large Mansions story is all over the news. Have you not been paying attention? BLM entities have been dissolved and state tax agencies are going after them for millions missing. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/california-threatens-to-hold-blms-leaders-personally-liable-over-missing-financial-records
We could do tit for tat all day long. You're engaging in hyperbole not conversation.
Regardless of how you feel about unions, am I the only one that sees some very dark irony in the fact that the political party that spent a majority of my lifespan destroying unions is now all in on the idea of blue collar labor organizing and coalescing together?
“Let’s do that but not call it a union, because unions are just big, corrupt bureaucracies.” Instead they’ll be absolutely no cohesive messaging, none of the benefits of unionizing and rather than paying dues we’ll send PayPals to Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Instead of the union bosses getting rich it will be Ivy League politicians hustling us out of money we can’t really afford to spare. That sounds way better! Blah blah blah, but socialism…
Yes, deeply ironic. However the Banana Republican Ivy League elites want their right to work wage slaves to substitute the GOP for union membership. Because, blah, blah, blah, but socialism.
The marginalization and destruction of unions is the necessary first step to prevent workers from believing that they have agency through collective bargaining. To belong to a union is a deprivation of your freedom--- your right to work for less.
When Nikki Haley was Governor in South Carolina she did everything she could to keep unions out. She went so far as to say she would not support tax incentives for any industry considering moving to South Carolina that had decent relationships with unions. Companies on friendly terms with unions would "Poison the well" she said.
. . .Michael Gerson writes in the Wapo, “Support for seditious acts is now a normal and accepted element of Republican identity.”
The animating spirit on the right is identical to that of vandalism. Destruction of the ideals on which this nation was built is the order of the day. And any vision of a new construction that would justify the razing of the Republic is entirely absent. At bottom, I see nothing but a childish tantrum.
It's odd that Charlie claims to understand what Jim Crow was when he gleefully supported men like Reagan and R. Johnson who claimed it had no lasting impact
Does he sound to you like he doesn't understand what it was?
The essence of Jim Crow laws has always been to take advantage of U.S. Constitutional "lacunae" in order to re-impose white supremacy.
Historically, the particular lacunae were the definitions of equal treatment of citizens under law, and the separation of federal and state powers. Poll taxes and literacy tests applied to "everyone." Those laws relating to racial segregation, white primaries, etc. were ratified by Supreme Court decisions over the years as "separate but equal" and as valid exercises of state authority. Racial violence was effectively considered a problem of state policing.
So, it's a mistake to solely associate Jim Crow with visible racially segregated public facilities and schools. Its essential feature is any effort to legally mandate racial supremacy within the interstices of constitutional law. It's the effect, however narrowly construed, that counts.
By applying the notion of states rights over the mechanics of voting, this very conservative Supreme Court seems well along the way to repeating past courts (with the honorable exception of the Warren Court) by defining down the meaning of political maps drawn to favor on race, and laws in urban black neighborhoods, etc. that disadvantage minority voters and representation.
If you don't want to call it Jim Crow, then at least invent another invidious meme.
Yes, it does. The SCOTUS has gutted the VRA and thus some Jim Crowian voting restrictions are legal. The SCOTUS argued that laws with a racist impact are fine as long as they are not explicitly racist in their language
Evidently, the SCOTUS condones De facto discrimination. And R politicians are taking full advantage.
Hi, I am one of the those anti-war protesters! In 2003, I joined an anti-war organization in (gasp) Berkeley, California. I also subscribe to the Intercept, and they are very anti-war still. Unlike the far right, their focus is on warmongering arms dealers and other corporate entities that profit from war whom they believe are chomping at the bit to start a new war. 20 years and a college degree in History later, I see things differently.
I think Russia invading Ukraine would be on the level of WW II inducing aggression, but I really don’t think Russian billionaires want a world war. Rich people want stability, and many, many Russian oligarchs own property here. Weirdly, the thing I hate the most might prevent a world war. Unlike World War II, we are much more financially intertwined. So while I find Russia’s posturing unsettling, Ukraine (unlike Georgia) would trigger responses the Russian kleptocracy would not want. So I hate war, but also understand how capitalism has made us safer because it makes us financially intertwined.
The Russian billionaires don't want a world war, but they might love a splendid little war that sends some spoils their way.
The American Democrat Party appear to be the cohort that wants a war with Russia only so it can harvest campaign memes.