MAGA’s Violent Threats Are Warping Life in America
By David French
Opinion Columnist
Feb. 18, 2024
Amid the constant drumbeat of sensational news stories — the scandals, the legal rulings, the wild political gambits — it’s sometimes easy to overlook the deeper trends that are shaping American life. For example, are you aware how much the constant threat of violence, principally from MAGA sources, is now warping American politics? If you wonder why so few people in red America seem to stand up directly against the MAGA movement, are you aware of the price they might pay if they did?
Late last month, I listened to a fascinating NPR interview with the journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman regarding their new book, “Find Me the Votes,” about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They report that Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had trouble finding lawyers willing to help prosecute her case against Trump. Even a former Georgia governor turned her down, saying, “Hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?”
He wasn’t exaggerating. Willis received an assassination threat so specific that one evening she had to leave her office incognito while a body double wearing a bulletproof vest courageously pretended to be her and offered a target for any possible incoming fire.
Don’t think for a moment that this is unusual today. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal Jan. 6 trial, has been swatted, as has the special counsel Jack Smith. For those unfamiliar, swatting is a terrifying act of intimidation in which someone calls law enforcement and falsely claims a violent crime is in process at the target’s address. This sends heavily armed police to a person’s home with the expectation of a violent confrontation. A swatting incident claimed the life of a Kansas man in 2017.
The Colorado Supreme Court likewise endured terrible threats after it ruled that Trump was disqualified from the ballot. There is deep concern for the safety of the witnesses and jurors in Trump’s various trials.
Mitt Romney faces so many threats that he spends $5,000 per day on security to protect his family. After Jan. 6, the former Republican congressman Peter Meijer said that at least one colleague voted not to certify the election out of fear for the safety of their family. Threats against members of Congress are pervasive, and there has been a shocking surge since Trump took office. Last year, Capitol Police opened more than 8,000 threat assessments, an eightfold increase since 2016.
Nor is the challenge confined to national politics. In 2021, Reuters published a horrifying and comprehensive report detailing the persistent threats against local election workers. In 2022, it followed up with another report detailing threats against local school boards. In my own Tennessee community, doctors and nurses who advocated wearing masks in schools were targets of screaming, threatening right-wing activists, who told one man, “We know who you are” and “We will find you.”
My own family has experienced terrifying nights and terrifying days over the last several years. We’ve faced death threats, a bomb scare, a clumsy swatting attempt and doxxing by white nationalists. People have shown up at our home. A man even came to my kids’ school. I’ve interacted with the F.B.I., the Tennessee Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement. While the explicit threats come and go, the sense of menace never quite leaves. We’re always looking over our shoulders.
And no, threats of ideological violence do not come exclusively from the right. We saw too much destruction accompanying the George Floyd protests to believe that. We’ve seen left-wing attacks and threats against Republicans and conservatives. The surge in antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7 is a sobering reminder that hatred lives on the right and the left alike.
But the tsunami of MAGA threats is different. The intimidation is systemic and ubiquitous, an acknowledged tactic in the playbook of the Trump right that flows all the way down from the violent fantasies of Donald Trump himself. It is rare to encounter a public-facing Trump critic who hasn’t faced threats and intimidation.
The threats drive decent men and women from public office. They isolate and frighten dissenters. When my family first began to face threats, the most dispiriting responses came from Christian acquaintances who concluded I was a traitor for turning on a movement whose members had expressed an explicit desire to kill my family.
But I don’t want to be too bleak. So let me end with a point of light. In the summer of 2021, I received a quite direct threat after I’d written a series of pieces opposing bans on teaching critical race theory in public schools. Someone sent my wife an email threatening to shoot me in the face.
My wife and I knew that it was almost certainly a bluff. But we also knew that white nationalists had our home address, both of us were out of town and the only person home that night was my college-age son. So we called the local sheriff, shared the threat, and asked if the department could send someone to check our house.
Minutes later, a young deputy called to tell me all was quiet at our home. When I asked if he would mind checking back frequently, he said he’d stay in front of our house all night. Then he asked, “Why did you get this threat?”
I hesitated before I told him. Our community is so MAGA that I had a pang of concern about his response. “I’m a columnist,” I said, “and we’ve had lots of threats ever since I wrote against Donald Trump.”
The deputy paused for a moment. “I’m a vet,” he said, “and I volunteered to serve because I believe in our Constitution. I believe in free speech.” And then he said words I’ll never forget: “You keep speaking, and I’ll stand guard.”
I didn’t know that deputy’s politics and I didn’t need to. When I heard his words, I thought, that’s it. That’s the way through. Sometimes we are called to speak. Sometimes we are called to stand guard. All the time we can at least comfort those under threat, telling them with words and deeds that they are not alone. If we do that, we can persevere. Otherwise, the fear will be too much for good people to bear.
David French is an Opinion columnist, writing about law, culture, religion and armed conflict. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator.
A year or so ago I posted a piece I described as satire about the US’ march (slide?) into theocracy. There is nothing satirical anymore. The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court argued in a recent concurring opinion that Alabama had put into law a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life” and that destroying that life — as in the disposal of fertilized eggs — would incur “the wrath of a holy God.”
Starting with Alabama, the Christian Bible has the effect of established legal precedent.
Thoughts on the predictable outcome but surprising overreach of the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump?
As is often the case, the concurrences have the better argument, imo.
@klezman The court has abandoned all pretense of impartiality or of being apolitical. They clearly went further than they needed to in reaching their decision so as to protect Trump should he be re-elected. Also amazing is the speed with which this decision came down as opposed to say, the toe-dragging on the perpetual presidential immunity issue.
I wonder if the “conservative” (read: “Trumplican”) justices drew straws to see who would write a token concurrence to try to put some lipstick on the pig.
@davirom It was lipstick on a pig, for sure. Barrett’s plea for seeing the agreement ahead of the disagreement was kind of disingenuous. They would have been far better off to just say, without much explanation (because it’s all muddled anyway) that states can’t unilaterally exclude a federal office nominee.
The so-called reasoning that only Congress can figure it out and must legislate for the 14th amendment to take effect was just crazy.
Term limits and the 18-year seat plan needs to be implemented.
@davirom@rjquillin I’m less concerned about term limits for Congress, actually. Even though it doesn’t happen as often as it should, we do get the chance to vote them out every 2 or 6 years.
The Supreme Court, running amok as it is right now (I know, ymmv, and you may think their rulings of late are all straightforward applications of settled law) and their lack of accountability to the public leads me to want their terms limited. That’s why I also like the 18-year plan. It creates enough responsiveness to the leader who gets to nominate while giving the kind of stability the law requires. (Stability, I might note, that the current right wing justices seem to not care one whit about.)
@klezman At least there’s oxygen. My friend just said she should pick Kennedy to run with her and I just can’t believe his name recognition is so much stronger than any of the words that have come out of his mouth.
@canonizer Kennedy’s thinking abilities were suspect before the worm-in-brain thing, though. And when I watched him interview with Bill Maher my concerns were amplified rather than reduced. So I really hope he’s nowhere near the levers of power. Ever.
I also doubt picking the running mate will matter all that much. Trump picked a total asshole as his, but it’s on brand. Hopefully Harris will pick somebody uplifting and future-looking.
@Mark_L I know, right? Just today in an op-ed in the LA Times, Scott Jennings, a former GWB White House advisor called out Democrats for failing to “respect the will of the voters”. No Republican would ever do that!
@davirom I would be overwhelmingly overjoyed (no matter what party is in power) if term limits could be imposed on every level of politics. In most cases, “problem solved”.
It’s exciting but is it Constitutional? Can the Presidential nominee drop out simply because he doesn’t see a path to victory? The people voted for him in the Primary. Obama seems to be the only one checking unbridled enthusiasm at the door, saying (sic) “I’m sure our leaders will come up with a process to choose a qualified candidate”. Is he, as a Constitutional scholar, worried about the legality of the process? Or does he just not like Harris?
@chipgreen Isn’t the party primary nothing more than a construct of the party, and not addressed in any Federal document? The parties can pretty much do what they want to for a nomination.
I’d be interested if the process is constitutionally documented differently somewhere.
@chipgreen@rjquillin what Ron said. There is also no legal mechanism to require delegates to the DNC to vote for the person who won the primary in their state. I’m not sure about the Republican rules, but as Ron said it’s up to the party.
I think it’d be much more difficult if, say, Trump dropped out now that he’s the official nominee. No idea what the party rules state or what the rules are for ballot access in the individual states that would then be in play.
@chipgreen@rjquillin not sure what comment you’re reacting to. I know little about Vance, but he does seem to be relatively principle-free, which isn’t a good start.
Obama has remained scrupulously neutral in nominating contests since 2012, so that’s not surprising.
@chipgreen@rjquillin ah, I was looking elsewhere and forgotten I’d said that.
That comment was based on the bunch of quotes I’d seen attributed to him, including things like wanting to make all abortion illegal no matter what and the complete turnabout on his stance on Trump.
As I said, I don’t know much about him. But my initial impressions are not good. But I am always open to new evidence.
@chipgreen@rjquillin I mean, I’d read it. But it has nothing to do with my impression of the things he’s said in the last week or so. Not too mention the “childless cat lady” crap.
Regardless of the insightfulness of his book quite a number of commentaries are also pointing out that he’s not particularly kind to those people he describes in the book either. But as I’ve not read it, this is just repeating what I’ve read elsewhere.
At the end of the day when you have a candidate who amplifies sexism (or racism or anti-Semitism or any other ism) you’re not likely to get me on his side.
@klezman@rjquillin
The “childless cat lady” term was an unfortunate turn of phrase but do you really believe that his point - that people with children are generally more invested in our Nation’s future than those who do not have children - is “crap”? It just seems like common sense to me. It’s a generalization with plenty of exceptions, but it’s a legitimate generalization IMHO.
@chipgreen@rjquillin completely disagree. To me that’s akin to saying that religion inherently makes people more moral.
And even if a point is valid, when delivered in a disrespectful way it has a way of delegitimizing the point since it calls into question whether the point is even being delivered in an honest way and for honest reasons. Maybe put another way, it’s an analogous rule to the Hitler rule in my books.
@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin Leaving aside morality and cats, what Vance said was that people who can’t or chose not to be parents, specifically VP Harris (who has 2 step kids), are less American. Another divisive battle in the culture wars, pandering to his base.
@chipgreen@davirom@rjquillin I find it kind of funny that the guy with kids is arguing that it doesn’t make him inherently more invested in the future while the guy with no kids is arguing the opposite. (Unless I’m forgetting about some offspring, that is.)
@chipgreen@davirom@rjquillin I’m disagreeing that it’s common sense. I think it’s emphatically not true that a person only cares about something in which they have a personal stake in the outcome. If that’s the world we live in we are indeed in big trouble.
@davirom@klezman@rjquillin
Please do not twist my words. It’s not a matter of care or not care. Those who have a vested interest in the future are going to care more about that future than those who do not. You can disagree all you want but that is simply human nature.
I understand what you’re saying, however, just because someone doesn’t have kids doesn’t mean they’re not as vested in the future.
For example: I personally don’t have any children yet, but I care greatly about the future of this planet and our society. (Obviously you don’t know me personally and you don’t have any evidence supporting my claim, but hopefully you’ll give me the benefit of the doubt and take my word for it.)
One could even argue that not having children allows a person more time, flexibility, and resources to focus their efforts on making a positive impact in the world. It’s no secret that raising children (successfully, at that) is no easy endeavor and requires significant time, attention, resources, etc.
@chipgreen@davirom@rjquillin No intent to twist your words at all. That’s not my jam.
I think your take on the relationship between having a vested interest and the amount one cares about advancing that interest (whatever it is) is rather American. I mean that as a neutral observation, truly. American culture has lionized individualism, and that leads to [some measure of truth] about how much Americans care about the parts of the future they’re not personally invested in.
Given that most people in this country have children, though, I would expect that we’d be much farther ahead on reversing climate change than we are now if your thesis held true. But I suppose that’s a debate for another day. It just seems like indirectly vested interests (like children and grandchildren) have little correlation to actual policy.
I was in the process of making an edit, but then I became busy and the editing window timed out of course.
If one were to play devil’s advocate, take into consideration how many people have children unexpectedly and don’t have the wherewithal and/or desire to provide them an ideal upbringing. As a quick example (without trying to veer the conversation entirely off track) look at the ridiculous number of teens/preteens that are committing crimes and stealing cars made by Kia/Hyundai thanks to the quick and easy “hack” that went viral on social media. How vested in the future are those parents?
I know you said there are plenty of exceptions to the generalization. So how many exceptions can a generalization have until it becomes crap/illegitimate?
Just for clarity… I’m in no way trying to disrespect your opinion. I simply wanted to take part in the conversation and add my thoughts (which may very well be worth merely two cents). In general, I try not to generalize.
@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin on the child point, it is not obvious to me that someone with biological children has a direct stake in the country’s future. If anything, it is an indirect one. They might well provide the best for their children, not necessarily the country. This plays out benignly in terms of education, service avoidance and other issues.
This might sound political but generational wealth and negligible death taxes are an obvious example of parents not taking a stake in the country.
@canonizer@chipgreen@rjquillin An excellent article. Quite saddening for me. This tells me that Vance could have been what, for me, would have amounted to a person who could bring the current version of the GOP back to a party I could respect. What a missed opportunity.
@canonizer@chipgreen@klezman@rjquillin Back to the thought that began this thread, it seems to me that it wasn’t Biden’s desire to drop out of the race, but when some of the powerhouse Democrats saw the increasing likelihood that he would lose the election (and the mega$-donors withholding any further donations until another candidate was placed, which likely accounts for a large amount of the donations they are touting Kamala as having “raised”), they pushed him out. And it is an interesting observation that they ignored their voters who had chosen him as the nominee. I just noticed some thoughts from a former Biden chief-of-staff: Former chief of staff says Democrats’ efforts to push out Biden were ‘nasty’
@canonizer@chipgreen@Mark_L@rjquillin
I think some of Harris’ fundraising may have been delayed donations but it’s been well documented that there’s been a groundswell of groups coordinating fundraising as well. Take that for whatever it’s worth - I don’t think it matters much. Not likely, imo, that $100M was delayed for the 6 weeks between the debate and when he withdrew.
And yes, Biden and his advisors probably feel quite angry. But it’s not like any of them thought this was a profession where kumbaya was the norm. I, personally, am happy that he saw the writing on the wall and acted appropriately. Even if he needed a whole lot of help to see it.
Instead of what Vance said in 2021, let’s look at what the top of the ticket said yesterday.
Trump said anyone who does “anything to desecrate” an American flag should be thrown in jail for a year. “Now people will say, ‘Oh, it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people,” he said.
He might be saying, ‘People who believe the Constitution guarantees free speech are stupid.’ Or possibly, ‘Only stupid people would raise a Constitutional issue with jailing flag burners.’ Either would suggest that he thinks it is OK to disregard the Constitution. Are there ways to construe his statement that would indicate he supports Constitutional free speech?
Trump also suggested that, on such issues, the U.S. could learn from strongman leaders in other countries.
“All over the world — Putin and President Xi of China — all over the world they’re watching this. Kim Jong Un, he looks at us like we’re a bunch of babies,” Trump said. “That wouldn’t happen in their countries. It’s impossible for that to happen in their country.” (sic)
That is foreshadowing - what we should expect from a Trump presidency. It is a clear endorsement of the persons, policies, and practices of 3 prominent authoritarians and dictators. Coming from someone who still hasn’t acknowledged his loss in 2020 and who, as recently as March 16 in Dayton, called the Jan 6 rioters “unbelievable patriots” and “hostages”, I don’t see how to take his comments lightly. Or why Americans would want to. But I am interested in other interpretations.
@davirom
Your last point about not acknowledging losing the last election, and even actively trying to find a way to overturn/disregard a free and fair election, is the very reason why I could never vote for Trump. That issue alone disqualifies him from holding office again, disregarding his policies (some of which I agreed with), the continuous lying, and playing of the victim card, never taking responsibility for consequences of his own actions. I continue to be shocked that nearly 50% of the country is okay with electing a person that actively tried to find ways to throw out election results when there was no evidence of voter fraud. How many cases were dismissed by judges due to lack of any evidence? But here we are, 45% of the country is saying that is okay, let’s vote for him again. I am truly curious why so many people are able to disregard his actions.
@davirom And also instead of 2021, what about this thought from Tom Friedman?
Ever since President Biden’s Sunday announcement that he would not seek re-election, clearly because of age, I keep thinking about Donald Trump’s and JD Vance’s contemptuous reactions to one of the most difficult personal decisions a president has ever made, and what it says about their character.
“The Democrats pick a candidate, Crooked Joe Biden, he loses the Debate badly, then panics, and makes mistake after mistake, is told he can’t win, and decide they will pick another candidate, probably Harris,” Trump wrote on social media on Monday. He later added: “It’s not over! Tomorrow Crooked Joe Biden’s going to wake up and forget that he dropped out of the race today!”
Not to be out-lowballed by his boss, Vance wrote on social media: “Joe Biden has been the worst President in my lifetime and Kamala Harris has been right there with him every step of the way.”
All they had to say was: “President Biden served his country for five decades and at this moment we thank him for that service. Tomorrow our campaign begins against his replacement. Bring her on.”
Let’s take kids out of the equation. Who cares more about the future of the stock market - someone who has a sizeable sum of money invested in it or someone who owns no stocks at all? Apparently the argument on the left is that those with no investments care just as much as those who own stocks. I guess keep telling yourselves that if it helps you sleep at night?
I thought I had disengaged when I said basically, “agree to disagree”. It is amusing to me how strongly opposed people will claim to be over something because of who said it.
I truly do not have the energy or motivation to continue debating left/right menutia such as this now viral comment from three years ago. While I steadfastedly maintain my position that those who are invested in the future care more about that future than those who are not invested in it, I do not believe that the difference is enough, in the scheme of things, to infer that childless politicians are not qualified enough or invested enough to lead the country. So, to me, it’s a non-issue but I cannot argue with the logic behind it.
Klez, I appreciate that you have historically been very civil in your political discourse and claim to have an open mind but am disappointed in your recent comments. I generally try to avoid this thread but your statement that JD Vance is a “total asshole” took me by surprise. I was legitimately curious as to why you had such strong negative feelings towards him, only for you to reply that you had no idea what I was talking about until RJ reminded you and then it was, “I really don’t know much about him”. Hmm… perhaps you are not quite as objective as you think you are?
Then, when I suggested his memoir, it came down to “I don’t care about his whole life because of video clips and sound bytes I have heard over the last 2 weeks”. OK, then.
JD Vance is an extremely intelligent, complicated person. He is also a politician. I don’t care much for politicians. In my book they are a necessary evil. Some of them may start out truly wanting to serve the public but in the end it is almost always about power and money.
I have mixed beings about Vance. In fact, I have mixed feelings about almost everyone and everything in this World. Everything is shades of gray to me. Sometimes I wish I could be more black & white. But mostly I am just tired of all the negativity on both sides. If you are a diehard liberal, that’s great! Hardcore conservative? Good for you! But how about trying to play up the positive side of our beliefs instead of constantly trying to outdo each other with negative comments? That would be a win-win in my book.
@chipgreen I think there’s been a whopping miscommunication here. Calling somebody in politics an asshole does not, for me, mean much in the way of strong feelings. My comment was based not on a clip from 2021, but on quotes and snippets from him in the last few weeks and at the RNC. He struck me as somebody who was using divisive and dismissive rhetoric, things that I am not a fan of. Because of where you put your comment I was looking in the wrong place for what triggered it, and, mea culpa, it took Ron scrolling farther up to point it out. To me it was not a weighty comment nor a thoroughly thoughtful one.
I don’t claim to be 100% objective and anybody saying they are would be lying to themselves. I am largely aware of my biases, at least, which isn’t to say I can always get around them. But I am always open minded, especially with respect to opinions grounded in fact. And I often change my mind as the facts change. (Want to talk about the evolution of my opinion on Progressives?)
As for the rest, I am largely in agreement. I would like the GOP to abandon the racist dogwhistles, the demonizing of LGBTQ people (especially the trans folks, among whom I count two close friends), and so on. I’d like the Democrats (and Republicans) to get out of identity politics. I’d also like elections to be short, like in the rest of the world, so that we could ignore most of politics for a few years at a time.
Vance seems truly intelligent. Very astute observer of America. It’s a shame he’s using that ability to support Trump. His instincts in the mid-teens appear to have been right on. In a world where Vance stuck to the principles he seemed to espouse a decade ago, I could be a full-throated supporter.
@chipgreen I’m confounded by the concept that wealth increases one’s stake in the country. You can’t take it with you. The stocks go towards your children, not the country, especially true given our minimal inheritance tax and stepped up cost basis. I’m very open that a person of any economic status wants the country to thrive with future generations, regardless of their procreative status
@chipgreen I want to thank you for engaging in this forum as you seem to be one of the very few CM’ers willing to present a counterpoint, preventing this from being an echo chamber.
@davirom
Thanks for your comment. Twenty years ago, I was all about debating politics - in the Amazon Gold Box Forum, of all places.
I truly don’t have the energy for it these days. Researching, quoting sources, fact-checking, etc. It’s a lot of work if you don’t want to just shoot your mouth off and then disappear, lol.
@chipgreen@davirom and in case it wasn’t clear, I feel the same way. I’m at a loss for sources of intelligent conversation and debate about politics. I’ve learned a lot from the discussion here over the years and I want to keep learning more.
Ron would hopefully agree that when he was here a few weeks ago all discussion of politics was polite and free of invective.
So Biden has proposed term limits for the Supreme Court justices. Since this will likely require amending the Constitution, I hope the Republicans place one requirement on passing this: term limits for every member of Congress. If the President and SCOTUS justices are term limited, there is no reason not to include the third branch of the government.
@Mark_L I’d like to see longer terms for the House. The every two year election thing is a major source, I think, of the political dysfunction of this country.
House = 4 year terms
Senate = 8 year terms, one senator from each state in each 4-year cycle
Federal elections then happen every 4 years. Less campaigning. More focus on legislating rather than fundraising.
And yes to Supreme Court term limits. When people rarely lived much past 60 or 65 it was one thing, but what happens when somebody refuses to retire well into their 80s or 90s and is clearly in decline?
I think it’s been an interesting debate as to whether an 18-year term limit could be accomplished via statute or would, by definition, require a constitutional amendment. I’ve seen convincing to my non-legal-expert eyes commentary on both sides.
@klezman I totally agree with longer terms for the House, although that would undo some of the “fluidity” that the founders were trying to establish (and I think 2 year terms create better stability than the kind of instant “no confidence” decisions in some countries). But with just 2 year terms every House member is spending a good part of every other year running for re-election. For the Supreme court, I would like to see term limits and maximum age.
I could even see less than 18 year terms for SCOTUS. With the current lifetime terms, it becomes tempting for the President to nominate the youngest candidate that can get approved, as it will lengthen the possible influence that their candidates can have on the court. If the term is (for example) 12 years, a President might be willing to select someone that is older (60?) who brings a longer, more proven, “track record” of jurisprudence to the court.
@Mark_L I used the 18 year term as an example because it seems to be the consensus given the current political cycle that it would be the most fair all around. A 12 year term and even a minimum age seem like potentially good ways to do it. I agree with the perverse incentives in place now.
I think the founders thought a 2 year term was good given the society at the time and they were probably right. In a world that moves 10x faster and where it takes 3 microseconds for news to travel the globe, things have changed. In a world where it takes millions of dollars to even run for a House seat, things have changed.
I know others here would disagree, but I thought one of the brilliant aspects of the constitution is that it can be amended. The founders knew they weren’t perfect and wanted the system to evolve to meet our times. We’ve let them down, imo, by not having a substantive amendment since 1965 (or 1971, if you prefer).
I think it could be a political winner for a candidate in the next election to bring a proposed package of constitutional amendments to the table.
@klezman@Mark_L There are some practical, as opposed to political, nuts & bolts problems with amending the Constitution. As I understand it (and I could be mistaken), there are 2 ways. (1) Congress passes a bill to amend and then 3/4 of states (38) ratify it. This is how the Equal Rights Amendment died. (It may technically be alive waiting for more states to ratify, or not.) Or, (2) A Constitutional Convention called an Article 5 Convention is called for by 2/3 of the states (34). Currently 28 mostly red states have called for such a convention.
The problem with (1) is that the only issue likely to rally bipartisan congressional consensus would be to thwart term limits for themselves. No such bill is likely to ever be proposed, yet still passed.
The problem with (2) is that once the Convention is convened EVERYTHING is on the table, up to and including repeal, because the Constitution does not set out rules for such a Convention. Amendments from the Convention must then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures or by state conventions. None of the existing 27 amendments came about by Convention.
@klezman I should have mentioned, I think that two 6-year terms is plenty for the senate (a potential 12 years, or perhaps 15 if coming in as a replacement with less than a half term) – the President is limited to two (or less than 10) years, so a Senator even would have a chance at a bit longer longer. Give the House three 4-year terms to keep things even. And if you have termed out of the House or Senate, your only further opportunities is to serve as VP and then President (if you’re good enough to last that long, you might deserve it). And while at it, there would likely need to be consideration for combined House & Senate years/terms
@davirom I would much rather see things such as this come through the “normal” amendment process rather than an Article 5 convention. (Here in Missouri, there is an (IMO) insane way that a certain number of signatures can get an amendment to the state constitution put on the ballot, and all it takes is a 50%+1 majority of the vote to pass it. There are some movements to make it a bit harder for such things to get passed.)
But one problem with this happening via the normal amendment process is that the entrenched lifetime politicians in both parties (becoming $$$$millionaires in office) will staunchly protect their empires, meaning that it might take a “revolution” by the people in the form of an Article 5 action.
I’ve always thought that these term limits might mean that some really good politicians will be forced to vacate their positions, but it’s kind of like losing the clean water that you have to use to flush out the .
@klezman@Mark_L
Some say an Article V Convention of the States could be more productive than attempting to push an amendment thru Congress, as it removes those more likely to prefer the system as it is; term limits is one of many items proposed for discussion.
[edit, I see this is further up the thread. Missed it due to a lack of a refresh]
@Mark_L I mostly agree with you, especially your closing analogy , but if a Convention follows a Trump victory I would make it more likely that presidential term limits are repealed rather than new congress and SCOTUS term limits imposed. Of course, that could happen if the R’s take both houses along with the presidency.
I also find it hard to believe that, after Citizens United, an Article 5 Convention would in any way be (as you put it) "…a “revolution” by the people…
@davirom By “revolution”, I was suggesting the will of the populace bypassing the unwillingness of those in power to “yield”. And I would be proud of the citizens if they (we) were to succeed in such a situation.
@klezman@Mark_L age is a hard one. one person is demented (literally) at age 50, while another is in perfectly good shape at 90. so term limits is a better option…
i had an employee a few years ago that was in her 70s and showing signs of early dementia and my hands were tied as there was nothing in policy about any form of medical clearance after hire. i was at the end scared she might hurt someone, and that would have devastated her.
@klezman There are probably many who look at the New York Times and exclaim “What has happened to my newspaper haunts me”, just as there are probably many Democrats who look at their party and wonder “What happened to the party of JFK?”. It is all a sad commentary on how polarized so much of our politics (and media) on both sides have become. I long to find a reliable news source that is totally objective and unbiased.
Is there some way we can be completely rid of political parties and just evaluate candidates based on their personal merits?
@Mark_L I probably should have noted the article is from Peter Wehner, former member of the Reagan, Bush, and Bush administrations.
I have plenty of misgivings about how the NY Times covers many things. But I give credit to the op-ed department for routinely publishing a wide array of opinion. At least in the last couple years.
The reason I’m so tired is in large part reflected here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/opinion/magas-violent-threats-are-warping-life-in-america.html
MAGA’s Violent Threats Are Warping Life in America
By David French
Opinion Columnist
Feb. 18, 2024
Amid the constant drumbeat of sensational news stories — the scandals, the legal rulings, the wild political gambits — it’s sometimes easy to overlook the deeper trends that are shaping American life. For example, are you aware how much the constant threat of violence, principally from MAGA sources, is now warping American politics? If you wonder why so few people in red America seem to stand up directly against the MAGA movement, are you aware of the price they might pay if they did?
Late last month, I listened to a fascinating NPR interview with the journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman regarding their new book, “Find Me the Votes,” about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They report that Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had trouble finding lawyers willing to help prosecute her case against Trump. Even a former Georgia governor turned her down, saying, “Hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?”
He wasn’t exaggerating. Willis received an assassination threat so specific that one evening she had to leave her office incognito while a body double wearing a bulletproof vest courageously pretended to be her and offered a target for any possible incoming fire.
Don’t think for a moment that this is unusual today. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal Jan. 6 trial, has been swatted, as has the special counsel Jack Smith. For those unfamiliar, swatting is a terrifying act of intimidation in which someone calls law enforcement and falsely claims a violent crime is in process at the target’s address. This sends heavily armed police to a person’s home with the expectation of a violent confrontation. A swatting incident claimed the life of a Kansas man in 2017.
The Colorado Supreme Court likewise endured terrible threats after it ruled that Trump was disqualified from the ballot. There is deep concern for the safety of the witnesses and jurors in Trump’s various trials.
Mitt Romney faces so many threats that he spends $5,000 per day on security to protect his family. After Jan. 6, the former Republican congressman Peter Meijer said that at least one colleague voted not to certify the election out of fear for the safety of their family. Threats against members of Congress are pervasive, and there has been a shocking surge since Trump took office. Last year, Capitol Police opened more than 8,000 threat assessments, an eightfold increase since 2016.
Nor is the challenge confined to national politics. In 2021, Reuters published a horrifying and comprehensive report detailing the persistent threats against local election workers. In 2022, it followed up with another report detailing threats against local school boards. In my own Tennessee community, doctors and nurses who advocated wearing masks in schools were targets of screaming, threatening right-wing activists, who told one man, “We know who you are” and “We will find you.”
My own family has experienced terrifying nights and terrifying days over the last several years. We’ve faced death threats, a bomb scare, a clumsy swatting attempt and doxxing by white nationalists. People have shown up at our home. A man even came to my kids’ school. I’ve interacted with the F.B.I., the Tennessee Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement. While the explicit threats come and go, the sense of menace never quite leaves. We’re always looking over our shoulders.
And no, threats of ideological violence do not come exclusively from the right. We saw too much destruction accompanying the George Floyd protests to believe that. We’ve seen left-wing attacks and threats against Republicans and conservatives. The surge in antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7 is a sobering reminder that hatred lives on the right and the left alike.
But the tsunami of MAGA threats is different. The intimidation is systemic and ubiquitous, an acknowledged tactic in the playbook of the Trump right that flows all the way down from the violent fantasies of Donald Trump himself. It is rare to encounter a public-facing Trump critic who hasn’t faced threats and intimidation.
The threats drive decent men and women from public office. They isolate and frighten dissenters. When my family first began to face threats, the most dispiriting responses came from Christian acquaintances who concluded I was a traitor for turning on a movement whose members had expressed an explicit desire to kill my family.
But I don’t want to be too bleak. So let me end with a point of light. In the summer of 2021, I received a quite direct threat after I’d written a series of pieces opposing bans on teaching critical race theory in public schools. Someone sent my wife an email threatening to shoot me in the face.
My wife and I knew that it was almost certainly a bluff. But we also knew that white nationalists had our home address, both of us were out of town and the only person home that night was my college-age son. So we called the local sheriff, shared the threat, and asked if the department could send someone to check our house.
Minutes later, a young deputy called to tell me all was quiet at our home. When I asked if he would mind checking back frequently, he said he’d stay in front of our house all night. Then he asked, “Why did you get this threat?”
I hesitated before I told him. Our community is so MAGA that I had a pang of concern about his response. “I’m a columnist,” I said, “and we’ve had lots of threats ever since I wrote against Donald Trump.”
The deputy paused for a moment. “I’m a vet,” he said, “and I volunteered to serve because I believe in our Constitution. I believe in free speech.” And then he said words I’ll never forget: “You keep speaking, and I’ll stand guard.”
I didn’t know that deputy’s politics and I didn’t need to. When I heard his words, I thought, that’s it. That’s the way through. Sometimes we are called to speak. Sometimes we are called to stand guard. All the time we can at least comfort those under threat, telling them with words and deeds that they are not alone. If we do that, we can persevere. Otherwise, the fear will be too much for good people to bear.
David French is an Opinion columnist, writing about law, culture, religion and armed conflict. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator.
A year or so ago I posted a piece I described as satire about the US’ march (slide?) into theocracy. There is nothing satirical anymore. The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court argued in a recent concurring opinion that Alabama had put into law a “theologically based view of the sanctity of life” and that destroying that life — as in the disposal of fertilized eggs — would incur “the wrath of a holy God.”
Starting with Alabama, the Christian Bible has the effect of established legal precedent.
@davirom truly scary, isn’t it?
@davirom @klezman yep yep yep!
@davirom American Taliban.
Or rewrite the Declaration of Independence…
@Mark_L I think it’s unlikely that the founders adopted a catholic or evangelical world view tbh to guide their framework.
Both the bible and founding documents are subject to interpretation
Thoughts on the predictable outcome but surprising overreach of the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump?
As is often the case, the concurrences have the better argument, imo.
@klezman The court has abandoned all pretense of impartiality or of being apolitical. They clearly went further than they needed to in reaching their decision so as to protect Trump should he be re-elected. Also amazing is the speed with which this decision came down as opposed to say, the toe-dragging on the perpetual presidential immunity issue.
I wonder if the “conservative” (read: “Trumplican”) justices drew straws to see who would write a token concurrence to try to put some lipstick on the pig.
@davirom It was lipstick on a pig, for sure. Barrett’s plea for seeing the agreement ahead of the disagreement was kind of disingenuous. They would have been far better off to just say, without much explanation (because it’s all muddled anyway) that states can’t unilaterally exclude a federal office nominee.
The so-called reasoning that only Congress can figure it out and must legislate for the 14th amendment to take effect was just crazy.
Term limits and the 18-year seat plan needs to be implemented.
@davirom @klezman
absolutely agree on term limits for congress;
but the only way you’ll get it is with a convention of the States
@davirom @rjquillin I’m less concerned about term limits for Congress, actually. Even though it doesn’t happen as often as it should, we do get the chance to vote them out every 2 or 6 years.
The Supreme Court, running amok as it is right now (I know, ymmv, and you may think their rulings of late are all straightforward applications of settled law) and their lack of accountability to the public leads me to want their terms limited. That’s why I also like the 18-year plan. It creates enough responsiveness to the leader who gets to nominate while giving the kind of stability the law requires. (Stability, I might note, that the current right wing justices seem to not care one whit about.)
GUYS THIS STUFF IS EXCITING!
@canonizer I KNOW!!!
@klezman At least there’s oxygen. My friend just said she should pick Kennedy to run with her and I just can’t believe his name recognition is so much stronger than any of the words that have come out of his mouth.
@canonizer Kennedy’s thinking abilities were suspect before the worm-in-brain thing, though. And when I watched him interview with Bill Maher my concerns were amplified rather than reduced. So I really hope he’s nowhere near the levers of power. Ever.
I also doubt picking the running mate will matter all that much. Trump picked a total asshole as his, but it’s on brand. Hopefully Harris will pick somebody uplifting and future-looking.
Indeed! To quote something I read this morning: “For the first time, the Democrats have managed to steal an election from their own candidate.”
@Mark_L I know, right? Just today in an op-ed in the LA Times, Scott Jennings, a former GWB White House advisor called out Democrats for failing to “respect the will of the voters”. No Republican would ever do that!
@davirom I would be overwhelmingly overjoyed (no matter what party is in power) if term limits could be imposed on every level of politics. In most cases, “problem solved”.
@davirom @Mark_L Agreed. Tired of Schumer and McConnell
It’s exciting but is it Constitutional? Can the Presidential nominee drop out simply because he doesn’t see a path to victory? The people voted for him in the Primary. Obama seems to be the only one checking unbridled enthusiasm at the door, saying (sic) “I’m sure our leaders will come up with a process to choose a qualified candidate”. Is he, as a Constitutional scholar, worried about the legality of the process? Or does he just not like Harris?
@chipgreen Isn’t the party primary nothing more than a construct of the party, and not addressed in any Federal document? The parties can pretty much do what they want to for a nomination.
I’d be interested if the process is constitutionally documented differently somewhere.
@chipgreen @rjquillin what Ron said. There is also no legal mechanism to require delegates to the DNC to vote for the person who won the primary in their state. I’m not sure about the Republican rules, but as Ron said it’s up to the party.
I think it’d be much more difficult if, say, Trump dropped out now that he’s the official nominee. No idea what the party rules state or what the rules are for ballot access in the individual states that would then be in play.
@klezman @rjquillin
From everything I have seen today, the legality issues do not seem to be a concern but Obama’s hesitancy gave me pause.
Klez, I am not surprised that you do not like JD Vance, but curious as to why your negative feelings are so strong?
@chipgreen @rjquillin not sure what comment you’re reacting to. I know little about Vance, but he does seem to be relatively principle-free, which isn’t a good start.
Obama has remained scrupulously neutral in nominating contests since 2012, so that’s not surprising.
@chipgreen @klezman I can only imagine it was
yet you profess
@chipgreen @rjquillin ah, I was looking elsewhere and forgotten I’d said that.
That comment was based on the bunch of quotes I’d seen attributed to him, including things like wanting to make all abortion illegal no matter what and the complete turnabout on his stance on Trump.
As I said, I don’t know much about him. But my initial impressions are not good. But I am always open to new evidence.
@klezman @rjquillin
Would you like me to send you a copy of Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis?
THE #1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER
“You will not read a more important book about America this year.”—The Economist
“A riveting book.”—The Wall Street Journal
“Essential reading.”—David Brooks, New York Times
@chipgreen @rjquillin I mean, I’d read it. But it has nothing to do with my impression of the things he’s said in the last week or so. Not too mention the “childless cat lady” crap.
Regardless of the insightfulness of his book quite a number of commentaries are also pointing out that he’s not particularly kind to those people he describes in the book either. But as I’ve not read it, this is just repeating what I’ve read elsewhere.
At the end of the day when you have a candidate who amplifies sexism (or racism or anti-Semitism or any other ism) you’re not likely to get me on his side.
@klezman @rjquillin
The “childless cat lady” term was an unfortunate turn of phrase but do you really believe that his point - that people with children are generally more invested in our Nation’s future than those who do not have children - is “crap”? It just seems like common sense to me. It’s a generalization with plenty of exceptions, but it’s a legitimate generalization IMHO.
@chipgreen @rjquillin completely disagree. To me that’s akin to saying that religion inherently makes people more moral.
And even if a point is valid, when delivered in a disrespectful way it has a way of delegitimizing the point since it calls into question whether the point is even being delivered in an honest way and for honest reasons. Maybe put another way, it’s an analogous rule to the Hitler rule in my books.
@klezman @rjquillin
I don’t think that is an apt analogy but I certainly respect your right to disagree.
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin Leaving aside morality and cats, what Vance said was that people who can’t or chose not to be parents, specifically VP Harris (who has 2 step kids), are less American. Another divisive battle in the culture wars, pandering to his base.
@chipgreen @davirom @rjquillin I find it kind of funny that the guy with kids is arguing that it doesn’t make him inherently more invested in the future while the guy with no kids is arguing the opposite. (Unless I’m forgetting about some offspring, that is.)
@davirom @klezman @rjquillin
Please quote your source for the “less American” comment. I saw the clip and that’s not what I heard.
@davirom @klezman @rjquillin
It’s not my argument but I can’t disagree with common sense.
@chipgreen @davirom @rjquillin I’m disagreeing that it’s common sense. I think it’s emphatically not true that a person only cares about something in which they have a personal stake in the outcome. If that’s the world we live in we are indeed in big trouble.
@davirom @klezman @rjquillin
Please do not twist my words. It’s not a matter of care or not care. Those who have a vested interest in the future are going to care more about that future than those who do not. You can disagree all you want but that is simply human nature.
@chipgreen
I understand what you’re saying, however, just because someone doesn’t have kids doesn’t mean they’re not as vested in the future.
For example: I personally don’t have any children yet, but I care greatly about the future of this planet and our society. (Obviously you don’t know me personally and you don’t have any evidence supporting my claim, but hopefully you’ll give me the benefit of the doubt and take my word for it.)
One could even argue that not having children allows a person more time, flexibility, and resources to focus their efforts on making a positive impact in the world. It’s no secret that raising children (successfully, at that) is no easy endeavor and requires significant time, attention, resources, etc.
@chipgreen @davirom @rjquillin No intent to twist your words at all. That’s not my jam.
I think your take on the relationship between having a vested interest and the amount one cares about advancing that interest (whatever it is) is rather American. I mean that as a neutral observation, truly. American culture has lionized individualism, and that leads to [some measure of truth] about how much Americans care about the parts of the future they’re not personally invested in.
Given that most people in this country have children, though, I would expect that we’d be much farther ahead on reversing climate change than we are now if your thesis held true. But I suppose that’s a debate for another day. It just seems like indirectly vested interests (like children and grandchildren) have little correlation to actual policy.
@chipgreen
I was in the process of making an edit, but then I became busy and the editing window timed out of course.
If one were to play devil’s advocate, take into consideration how many people have children unexpectedly and don’t have the wherewithal and/or desire to provide them an ideal upbringing. As a quick example (without trying to veer the conversation entirely off track) look at the ridiculous number of teens/preteens that are committing crimes and stealing cars made by Kia/Hyundai thanks to the quick and easy “hack” that went viral on social media. How vested in the future are those parents?
I know you said there are plenty of exceptions to the generalization. So how many exceptions can a generalization have until it becomes crap/illegitimate?
Just for clarity… I’m in no way trying to disrespect your opinion. I simply wanted to take part in the conversation and add my thoughts (which may very well be worth merely two cents). In general, I try not to generalize.
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin on the child point, it is not obvious to me that someone with biological children has a direct stake in the country’s future. If anything, it is an indirect one. They might well provide the best for their children, not necessarily the country. This plays out benignly in terms of education, service avoidance and other issues.
This might sound political but generational wealth and negligible death taxes are an obvious example of parents not taking a stake in the country.
@chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin
JD Vance, an Unlikely Friendship and Why It Ended https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/27/us/politics/jd-vance-friend-transgender.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
@canonizer @chipgreen @rjquillin An excellent article. Quite saddening for me. This tells me that Vance could have been what, for me, would have amounted to a person who could bring the current version of the GOP back to a party I could respect. What a missed opportunity.
@canonizer @chipgreen @klezman @rjquillin Back to the thought that began this thread, it seems to me that it wasn’t Biden’s desire to drop out of the race, but when some of the powerhouse Democrats saw the increasing likelihood that he would lose the election (and the mega$-donors withholding any further donations until another candidate was placed, which likely accounts for a large amount of the donations they are touting Kamala as having “raised”), they pushed him out. And it is an interesting observation that they ignored their voters who had chosen him as the nominee. I just noticed some thoughts from a former Biden chief-of-staff: Former chief of staff says Democrats’ efforts to push out Biden were ‘nasty’
@canonizer @chipgreen @klezman @Mark_L
Was this really not obvious from the git-go?
@canonizer @chipgreen @Mark_L @rjquillin
I think some of Harris’ fundraising may have been delayed donations but it’s been well documented that there’s been a groundswell of groups coordinating fundraising as well. Take that for whatever it’s worth - I don’t think it matters much. Not likely, imo, that $100M was delayed for the 6 weeks between the debate and when he withdrew.
And yes, Biden and his advisors probably feel quite angry. But it’s not like any of them thought this was a profession where kumbaya was the norm. I, personally, am happy that he saw the writing on the wall and acted appropriately. Even if he needed a whole lot of help to see it.
Instead of what Vance said in 2021, let’s look at what the top of the ticket said yesterday.
Trump said anyone who does “anything to desecrate” an American flag should be thrown in jail for a year.
“Now people will say, ‘Oh, it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people,” he said.
He might be saying, ‘People who believe the Constitution guarantees free speech are stupid.’ Or possibly, ‘Only stupid people would raise a Constitutional issue with jailing flag burners.’ Either would suggest that he thinks it is OK to disregard the Constitution. Are there ways to construe his statement that would indicate he supports Constitutional free speech?
Trump also suggested that, on such issues, the U.S. could learn from strongman leaders in other countries.
“All over the world — Putin and President Xi of China — all over the world they’re watching this. Kim Jong Un, he looks at us like we’re a bunch of babies,” Trump said. “That wouldn’t happen in their countries. It’s impossible for that to happen in their country.” (sic)
That is foreshadowing - what we should expect from a Trump presidency. It is a clear endorsement of the persons, policies, and practices of 3 prominent authoritarians and dictators. Coming from someone who still hasn’t acknowledged his loss in 2020 and who, as recently as March 16 in Dayton, called the Jan 6 rioters “unbelievable patriots” and “hostages”, I don’t see how to take his comments lightly. Or why Americans would want to. But I am interested in other interpretations.
@davirom
Your last point about not acknowledging losing the last election, and even actively trying to find a way to overturn/disregard a free and fair election, is the very reason why I could never vote for Trump. That issue alone disqualifies him from holding office again, disregarding his policies (some of which I agreed with), the continuous lying, and playing of the victim card, never taking responsibility for consequences of his own actions. I continue to be shocked that nearly 50% of the country is okay with electing a person that actively tried to find ways to throw out election results when there was no evidence of voter fraud. How many cases were dismissed by judges due to lack of any evidence? But here we are, 45% of the country is saying that is okay, let’s vote for him again. I am truly curious why so many people are able to disregard his actions.
@davirom @dirtdoctor Yes, 100x this.
@davirom And also instead of 2021, what about this thought from Tom Friedman?
Ever since President Biden’s Sunday announcement that he would not seek re-election, clearly because of age, I keep thinking about Donald Trump’s and JD Vance’s contemptuous reactions to one of the most difficult personal decisions a president has ever made, and what it says about their character.
“The Democrats pick a candidate, Crooked Joe Biden, he loses the Debate badly, then panics, and makes mistake after mistake, is told he can’t win, and decide they will pick another candidate, probably Harris,” Trump wrote on social media on Monday. He later added: “It’s not over! Tomorrow Crooked Joe Biden’s going to wake up and forget that he dropped out of the race today!”
Not to be out-lowballed by his boss, Vance wrote on social media: “Joe Biden has been the worst President in my lifetime and Kamala Harris has been right there with him every step of the way.”
All they had to say was: “President Biden served his country for five decades and at this moment we thank him for that service. Tomorrow our campaign begins against his replacement. Bring her on.”
Let’s take kids out of the equation. Who cares more about the future of the stock market - someone who has a sizeable sum of money invested in it or someone who owns no stocks at all? Apparently the argument on the left is that those with no investments care just as much as those who own stocks. I guess keep telling yourselves that if it helps you sleep at night?
I thought I had disengaged when I said basically, “agree to disagree”. It is amusing to me how strongly opposed people will claim to be over something because of who said it.
I truly do not have the energy or motivation to continue debating left/right menutia such as this now viral comment from three years ago. While I steadfastedly maintain my position that those who are invested in the future care more about that future than those who are not invested in it, I do not believe that the difference is enough, in the scheme of things, to infer that childless politicians are not qualified enough or invested enough to lead the country. So, to me, it’s a non-issue but I cannot argue with the logic behind it.
Klez, I appreciate that you have historically been very civil in your political discourse and claim to have an open mind but am disappointed in your recent comments. I generally try to avoid this thread but your statement that JD Vance is a “total asshole” took me by surprise. I was legitimately curious as to why you had such strong negative feelings towards him, only for you to reply that you had no idea what I was talking about until RJ reminded you and then it was, “I really don’t know much about him”. Hmm… perhaps you are not quite as objective as you think you are?
Then, when I suggested his memoir, it came down to “I don’t care about his whole life because of video clips and sound bytes I have heard over the last 2 weeks”. OK, then.
JD Vance is an extremely intelligent, complicated person. He is also a politician. I don’t care much for politicians. In my book they are a necessary evil. Some of them may start out truly wanting to serve the public but in the end it is almost always about power and money.
I have mixed beings about Vance. In fact, I have mixed feelings about almost everyone and everything in this World. Everything is shades of gray to me. Sometimes I wish I could be more black & white. But mostly I am just tired of all the negativity on both sides. If you are a diehard liberal, that’s great! Hardcore conservative? Good for you! But how about trying to play up the positive side of our beliefs instead of constantly trying to outdo each other with negative comments? That would be a win-win in my book.
@chipgreen I think there’s been a whopping miscommunication here. Calling somebody in politics an asshole does not, for me, mean much in the way of strong feelings. My comment was based not on a clip from 2021, but on quotes and snippets from him in the last few weeks and at the RNC. He struck me as somebody who was using divisive and dismissive rhetoric, things that I am not a fan of. Because of where you put your comment I was looking in the wrong place for what triggered it, and, mea culpa, it took Ron scrolling farther up to point it out. To me it was not a weighty comment nor a thoroughly thoughtful one.
I don’t claim to be 100% objective and anybody saying they are would be lying to themselves. I am largely aware of my biases, at least, which isn’t to say I can always get around them. But I am always open minded, especially with respect to opinions grounded in fact. And I often change my mind as the facts change. (Want to talk about the evolution of my opinion on Progressives?)
As for the rest, I am largely in agreement. I would like the GOP to abandon the racist dogwhistles, the demonizing of LGBTQ people (especially the trans folks, among whom I count two close friends), and so on. I’d like the Democrats (and Republicans) to get out of identity politics. I’d also like elections to be short, like in the rest of the world, so that we could ignore most of politics for a few years at a time.
Vance seems truly intelligent. Very astute observer of America. It’s a shame he’s using that ability to support Trump. His instincts in the mid-teens appear to have been right on. In a world where Vance stuck to the principles he seemed to espouse a decade ago, I could be a full-throated supporter.
Give this a listen. I thought it was insightful. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-dont-we-have-better-candidates-for-president/ (Note this was from before Biden dropped out.)
@chipgreen I’m confounded by the concept that wealth increases one’s stake in the country. You can’t take it with you. The stocks go towards your children, not the country, especially true given our minimal inheritance tax and stepped up cost basis. I’m very open that a person of any economic status wants the country to thrive with future generations, regardless of their procreative status
@canonizer
I never said that. You are combining two different comments.
@chipgreen I want to thank you for engaging in this forum as you seem to be one of the very few CM’ers willing to present a counterpoint, preventing this from being an echo chamber.
@davirom
Thanks for your comment. Twenty years ago, I was all about debating politics - in the Amazon Gold Box Forum, of all places.
I truly don’t have the energy for it these days. Researching, quoting sources, fact-checking, etc. It’s a lot of work if you don’t want to just shoot your mouth off and then disappear, lol.
@chipgreen @davirom and in case it wasn’t clear, I feel the same way. I’m at a loss for sources of intelligent conversation and debate about politics. I’ve learned a lot from the discussion here over the years and I want to keep learning more.
Ron would hopefully agree that when he was here a few weeks ago all discussion of politics was polite and free of invective.
posted on the other side, but not everyone goes there
@Cerridwyn Other side = meh?
@klezman aye
So Biden has proposed term limits for the Supreme Court justices. Since this will likely require amending the Constitution, I hope the Republicans place one requirement on passing this: term limits for every member of Congress. If the President and SCOTUS justices are term limited, there is no reason not to include the third branch of the government.
@Mark_L I’d like to see longer terms for the House. The every two year election thing is a major source, I think, of the political dysfunction of this country.
House = 4 year terms
Senate = 8 year terms, one senator from each state in each 4-year cycle
Federal elections then happen every 4 years. Less campaigning. More focus on legislating rather than fundraising.
And yes to Supreme Court term limits. When people rarely lived much past 60 or 65 it was one thing, but what happens when somebody refuses to retire well into their 80s or 90s and is clearly in decline?
I think it’s been an interesting debate as to whether an 18-year term limit could be accomplished via statute or would, by definition, require a constitutional amendment. I’ve seen convincing to my non-legal-expert eyes commentary on both sides.
@klezman I totally agree with longer terms for the House, although that would undo some of the “fluidity” that the founders were trying to establish (and I think 2 year terms create better stability than the kind of instant “no confidence” decisions in some countries). But with just 2 year terms every House member is spending a good part of every other year running for re-election. For the Supreme court, I would like to see term limits and maximum age.
I could even see less than 18 year terms for SCOTUS. With the current lifetime terms, it becomes tempting for the President to nominate the youngest candidate that can get approved, as it will lengthen the possible influence that their candidates can have on the court. If the term is (for example) 12 years, a President might be willing to select someone that is older (60?) who brings a longer, more proven, “track record” of jurisprudence to the court.
@Mark_L I used the 18 year term as an example because it seems to be the consensus given the current political cycle that it would be the most fair all around. A 12 year term and even a minimum age seem like potentially good ways to do it. I agree with the perverse incentives in place now.
I think the founders thought a 2 year term was good given the society at the time and they were probably right. In a world that moves 10x faster and where it takes 3 microseconds for news to travel the globe, things have changed. In a world where it takes millions of dollars to even run for a House seat, things have changed.
I know others here would disagree, but I thought one of the brilliant aspects of the constitution is that it can be amended. The founders knew they weren’t perfect and wanted the system to evolve to meet our times. We’ve let them down, imo, by not having a substantive amendment since 1965 (or 1971, if you prefer).
I think it could be a political winner for a candidate in the next election to bring a proposed package of constitutional amendments to the table.
@klezman @Mark_L There are some practical, as opposed to political, nuts & bolts problems with amending the Constitution. As I understand it (and I could be mistaken), there are 2 ways. (1) Congress passes a bill to amend and then 3/4 of states (38) ratify it. This is how the Equal Rights Amendment died. (It may technically be alive waiting for more states to ratify, or not.) Or, (2) A Constitutional Convention called an Article 5 Convention is called for by 2/3 of the states (34). Currently 28 mostly red states have called for such a convention.
The problem with (1) is that the only issue likely to rally bipartisan congressional consensus would be to thwart term limits for themselves. No such bill is likely to ever be proposed, yet still passed.
The problem with (2) is that once the Convention is convened EVERYTHING is on the table, up to and including repeal, because the Constitution does not set out rules for such a Convention. Amendments from the Convention must then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures or by state conventions. None of the existing 27 amendments came about by Convention.
Be careful what you wish for.
@klezman I should have mentioned, I think that two 6-year terms is plenty for the senate (a potential 12 years, or perhaps 15 if coming in as a replacement with less than a half term) – the President is limited to two (or less than 10) years, so a Senator even would have a chance at a bit longer longer. Give the House three 4-year terms to keep things even. And if you have termed out of the House or Senate, your only further opportunities is to serve as VP and then President (if you’re good enough to last that long, you might deserve it). And while at it, there would likely need to be consideration for combined House & Senate years/terms
@davirom I would much rather see things such as this come through the “normal” amendment process rather than an Article 5 convention. (Here in Missouri, there is an (IMO) insane way that a certain number of signatures can get an amendment to the state constitution put on the ballot, and all it takes is a 50%+1 majority of the vote to pass it. There are some movements to make it a bit harder for such things to get passed.)
But one problem with this happening via the normal amendment process is that the entrenched lifetime politicians in both parties (becoming $$$$millionaires in office) will staunchly protect their empires, meaning that it might take a “revolution” by the people in the form of an Article 5 action.
I’ve always thought that these term limits might mean that some really good politicians will be forced to vacate their positions, but it’s kind of like losing the clean water that you have to use to flush out the
.
@klezman @Mark_L
Some say an Article V Convention of the States could be more productive than attempting to push an amendment thru Congress, as it removes those more likely to prefer the system as it is; term limits is one of many items proposed for discussion.
[edit, I see this is further up the thread. Missed it due to a lack of a refresh]
@Mark_L I mostly agree with you, especially your closing analogy
, but if a Convention follows a Trump victory I would make it more likely that presidential term limits are repealed rather than new congress and SCOTUS term limits imposed. Of course, that could happen if the R’s take both houses along with the presidency.
I also find it hard to believe that, after Citizens United, an Article 5 Convention would in any way be (as you put it) "…a “revolution” by the people…
@davirom By “revolution”, I was suggesting the will of the populace bypassing the unwillingness of those in power to “yield”. And I would be proud of the citizens if they (we) were to succeed in such a situation.
@klezman @Mark_L age is a hard one. one person is demented (literally) at age 50, while another is in perfectly good shape at 90. so term limits is a better option…
i had an employee a few years ago that was in her 70s and showing signs of early dementia and my hands were tied as there was nothing in policy about any form of medical clearance after hire. i was at the end scared she might hurt someone, and that would have devastated her.
I’d love to hear current/former Republican supporters’ comments on this. Gift link to bypass paywall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/opinion/trump-vance-republican-party.html?unlocked_article_code=1.-00.yAmi._9QxfJFEHQ93&smid=url-share
@klezman There are probably many who look at the New York Times and exclaim “What has happened to my newspaper haunts me”, just as there are probably many Democrats who look at their party and wonder “What happened to the party of JFK?”. It is all a sad commentary on how polarized so much of our politics (and media) on both sides have become. I long to find a reliable news source that is totally objective and unbiased.
Is there some way we can be completely rid of political parties and just evaluate candidates based on their personal merits?
@Mark_L I probably should have noted the article is from Peter Wehner, former member of the Reagan, Bush, and Bush administrations.
I have plenty of misgivings about how the NY Times covers many things. But I give credit to the op-ed department for routinely publishing a wide array of opinion. At least in the last couple years.
Brought a few him home.
Anyone know how Rupert’s other properties are describing the event?
https://webview.wsj.com/webview/WP-WSJ-0001944905?wsj_native_webview=android&ace_environment=androidphone%2Cwebview&ace_config={"wsj"%3A{"djcmp"%3A{"propertyHref"%3A"https%3A%2F%2Fwsj.android.app"}}}&ns=prod/accounts-wsj