The USA is a racist society

[Eric the Green]

If there were any doubt that the USA is a racist, white-supremacist society, recent events should quell that notion. It certainly does for me. And also a society bordering on totalitarian societies like Belarus and Myanmar. (I should have put white supremacist in the title too, seeing as how Classic Xer reverses the meaning of racist, but I can't edit the title)

The vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse was let off after murdering 2 protesters who were marching against the cop assault on young black man Jacob Blake, who was shot in the back 7 times and paralyzed in Kenosha WI just for getting into his car, and the cop had been let off without charge too. An almost all white jury is now deciding if it should also let off 3 white men for killing young black man Armaud Arbury on grounds they were making a citizens arrest and acting in self-defense.

The mania about critical race theory is another indication. The racists think school children should not be aware of the racism that exists and that has existed in our society. The Republican totalitarian militants say protesters should be put down by force, just like the junta in Myanmar does along with many other dictators around the world. I wonder if Kyle will inspire other violent racists to pick up guns and kill people; what about you Classic Xer?

Here's how Public Citizen puts it today:
(quote)

Earlier today, Kyle Rittenhouse was found “not guilty” on all counts.

Rittenhouse was 17 years old when he crossed state lines with an assault rifle in August of 2020 — to, in his words, protect property — as protests spread through Kenosha, Wisconsin, after police there shot an unarmed Black man (in the back, seven times) named Jacob Blake.

Rittenhouse ended up shooting three people, killing two of them.

Because our laws are so skewed in favor of gun ownership and claims of “self-defense” — at least for white people — a case was able to be made for Rittenhouse’s acquittal.

Even Rittenhouse’s defenders should view what happened as a tragedy.

But instead, right-wing figures are having a field day, declaring Rittenhouse a hero. Here are just a few examples:

• Rep. Matt Gaetz announced that Rittenhouse would “make a great congressional intern.”
  

• Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman called Rittenhouse a “civil hero.”
  

• Fox News “personality” Greg Gutfeld thinks Rittenhouse “did what the government should have done” by making sure “these violent, disgusting dirtbags weren’t roaming the streets.”
  

• Gutfeld’s colleague Tomi Lahren — who three years ago stated that the “highlight” of her Thanksgiving was watching border patrol agents teargas immigrants — opined that “the decent people of this country are tired of allowing it to be destroyed by thugs and miscreants.”
  

• And Fox News’s biggest act, Tucker Carlson, said that in a “normal country,” Black Lives Matter activists would “be put down immediately with force.”
  

This idolization of Rittenhouse is one more example of a very dangerous phenomenon — the calculated encouragement and normalization of political violence — that is unfolding all across America.

We saw it last week when a sitting member of Congress, Rep. Paul Gosar, proudly posted an animated video in which he is depicted killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Joe Biden.

We saw it on January 6 when a mob incited by Donald Trump laid siege to the United States Capitol in what amounted to an attempted coup d’etat to keep Trump in power.

We saw it last summer when a wealthy white couple in St. Louis pointed guns at unarmed people participating in a Black Lives Matter march after George Floyd’s murder. (One half of that couple, Mark McCloskey, is now running for the Senate. He showed up in Kenosha during the trial to show support for Rittenhouse, posing for photos with people making “white power” hand signals.)

We are witnessing the emergence of a proto-fascist movement that has a categorically different disdain for democracy, multiculturalism, and the rule of law than anything we’ve seen in generations.

Please join me in this simple but essential commitment:

I am outraged by the rise of neo-fascism in America. Democracy cannot exist at the end of a gun. We must stand up to right-wing leaders who foment, glorify, and even perpetrate political violence.

[pbrower2a]

Eric:

I join you  in this simple but essential commitment:

I am outraged by the rise of neo-fascism in America. Democracy cannot exist at the end of a gun. We must stand up to right-wing leaders who foment, glorify, and even perpetrate political violence.

pbrower2a

[David Horn]

(11-19-2021, 05:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We are witnessing the emergence of a proto-fascist movement that has a categorically different disdain for democracy, multiculturalism, and the rule of law than anything we’ve seen in generations.

Please join me in this simple but essential commitment:

I am outraged by the rise of neo-fascism in America. Democracy cannot exist at the end of a gun. We must stand up to right-wing leaders who foment, glorify, and even perpetrate political violence.

It's impossible to argue that we are not in degraded times.  The only question left to be answered: will fascism win?  It's never possible to know the answer until it's revealed, but it's not looking good at the moment.  The public just doesn't care.

[Eric the Green]

(11-20-2021, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-19-2021, 05:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We are witnessing the emergence of a proto-fascist movement that has a categorically different disdain for democracy, multiculturalism, and the rule of law than anything we’ve seen in generations.

Please join me in this simple but essential commitment:

I am outraged by the rise of neo-fascism in America. Democracy cannot exist at the end of a gun. We must stand up to right-wing leaders who foment, glorify, and even perpetrate political violence.

It's impossible to argue that we are not in degraded times.  The only question left to be answered: will fascism win?  It's never possible to know the answer until it's revealed, but it's not looking good at the moment.  The public just doesn't care.

I agree. The USA public does not care. At the moment. Will the moment pass, or are we now blowing and muffing our last chance to escape from fascism and banana republic(s) status? I predicted long ago that we would turn this around this decade. Well, I can't back away from my prediction just because it looks bad now. BUT, we'll see.

In other countries people are rising up against this fascism. Just about everywhere. And they are getting crushed, since people-power does not work against rulers without conscience. So, we'll see there too if the people eventually win or not. 

It was rising here too-- but our pattern has been since the 90s: we rise up, and the result is to elect a Democratic Party government, and then the people quickly refuse to support it when it doesn't deliver right away because it (according to your views) is too "socialist" and too successful at getting rid of the neoliberal noose, or else too much of a failure because neo-liberal power and ideology is still great enough to block the real Democrats from doing enough.

One good thing is, at least on the government spending side, congress has approved more spending for the needs of the people and society, even since late March 2020, than ever before; a partial rebuke to neoliberal trickle-down. But the other side of this revocation of trickle-down fascism needs to begin when the Senate passes some version of BBBBB; including raising taxes on the rich to pay for it. It also need to bypass the filibuster to pass voting rights. I don't know if or when these things will happen.

The movement against racism that ballooned in June 2020 with the cop killing of George Floyd, has been overwhelmed by a pro-racist movement in October/November 2021 against "critical race theory" and support for a coup, for police, and for police and vigilante killings. So, we may be headed for the race war that the Republican fascists and racist-murderers want.

[David Horn]

(11-20-2021, 06:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was rising here too-- but our pattern has been since the 90s: we rise up, and the result is to elect a Democratic Party government, and then the people quickly refuse to support it when it doesn't deliver right away because it (according to your views) is too "socialist" and too successful at getting rid of the neoliberal noose, or else too much of a failure because neo-liberal power and ideology is still great enough to block the real Democrats from doing enough.

I'll take issue with one thing. My view of the Democrats is simple enough: they're gutless and monumentally indecisive. The only thing Bill Clinton ever said that I endorse: people prefer wrong and strong to right and weak. The Dems have a platform that doesn't even fly well inside their own party, because there is no internal party-based pain to being a petty self-serving jerk -- just ask Sinema and Manchin. People won't follow handwringers, so the party needs to pick a position, adopt it as policy and enforce compliance on their members -- just like the GOP does with theirs. I don't like that model, but, sadly, it works

more from Eric Wrote:One good thing is, at least on the government spending side, congress has approved more spending for the needs of the people and society, even since late March 2020, than ever before; a partial rebuke to neoliberal trickle-down. But the other side of this revocation of trickle-down fascism needs to begin when the Senate passes some version of BBBBB; including raising taxes on the rich to pay for it. It also need to bypass the filibuster to pass voting rights. I don't know if or when these things will happen.

The real problem with legislation that's complicated: the public's eyes glaze over and they ignore what's actually happening. Instead, they go for bumper sticker memes, no matter how innane.

more from Eric Wrote:The movement against racism that ballooned in June 2020 with the cop killing of George Floyd, has been overwhelmed by a pro-racist movement in October/November 2021 against "critical race theory" and support for a coup, for police, and for police and vigilante killings. So, we may be headed for the race war that the Republican fascists and racist-murderers want.

CRT is a perfect example of a brainless meme, and cheering for "the good guy" falls right in line with the rest of the nonsense. Yes, I think general violence may ensue. Where it leads and how the US government (i.e. Joe Biden) responds are open questions.

[Anthony '58]

(11-20-2021, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-19-2021, 05:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We are witnessing the emergence of a proto-fascist movement that has a categorically different disdain for democracy, multiculturalism, and the rule of law than anything we’ve seen in generations.

Please join me in this simple but essential commitment:

I am outraged by the rise of neo-fascism in America. Democracy cannot exist at the end of a gun. We must stand up to right-wing leaders who foment, glorify, and even perpetrate political violence.

It's impossible to argue that we are not in degraded times.  The only question left to be answered: will fascism win?  It's never possible to know the answer until it's revealed, but it's not looking good at the moment.  The public just doesn't care.

For the fascists, time is of the essence: The 2020 U.S. Census revealed a country that is (rounded off to the nearest whole percentage point) 60% white, 19% Hispanic*, 13% African-American, 6% Asian, and 2% "Indigenous American" (a category that now includes Hawaiians, Samoans etc. as well as American Indians and Alaskan Natives; i.e., the people formerly known as Eskimos).

*All persons who satisfy the criteria for designation as "Hispanic" are classified as such, irrespective of their other characteristics (i.e., skin color).

The point being that by 2040, or slightly later, the white share of the U.S. population will fall below 50% - a prospect that whites in general, and older whites in particular, are nothing short of paranoid about.

This is why the fascists have to make their move certainly within the next 20 years - and quite possibly within the next 10 years.

And when they do make that move, the Second Civil War will be at hand - and the left won't give a tinker's damn who they need to collaborate with, be it Russia, China, or even Iran, thus echoing the 2T's chants of "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win" - just as the Social Gospel directly led to the New Deal, the abolitionist movement foreshadowed the Civil War, the colonial Great Awakening foreshadowed the American Revolution, the Puritan Awakening foreshadowed the Glorious Revolution (on both sides of the Atlantic), and the Reformation set the stage for the War of the Spanish Armada.

[pbrower2a]

(11-20-2021, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-19-2021, 05:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We are witnessing the emergence of a proto-fascist movement that has a categorically different dithe freedom to be lost is sdain for democracy, multiculturalism, and the rule of law than anything we’ve seen in generations.

Please join me in this simple but essential commitment:

I am outraged by the rise of neo-fascism in America. Democracy cannot exist at the end of a gun. We must stand up to right-wing leaders who foment, glorify, and even perpetrate political violence.

It's impossible to argue that we are not in degraded times.  The only question left to be answered: will fascism win?  It's never possible to know the answer until it's revealed, but it's not looking good at the moment.  The public just doesn't care.

Fascism requires that people sell out freedom, which is far easier to do when the loss of freedom is by others. Usually that is of "others' by ethnicity, faith, or class. Take jobs away from Model Minorities or compel them to sell off assets cheaply? Take away the right to a militant union so that employers can cut wages? Promote huge increases in preparations for war? Of course such is evil, but that is what Hitler did. Are we Americans wise enough to reject such? I can't be sure.

One thing is sure: socialism won't. Another thing is sure; libertarianism won't, either. The economic elites of America today seem to want a government that represents wealth and not people, and they can always find people so deluded and desperate that they could accept such for an electoral cycle or two so that we can get some new birth of prosperity. Nobody that such people believe credibly warns them that their freedom will vanish indefinitely, and that the agony of poverty will only intensify. Dissidents will be brutalized or murdered. It'd feudalism with high technology. Well, that is one way to describe fascism!

[Anthony '58]

Whether or not to end the filibuster at all constitutes a high-stakes game of chicken.

What if the Democrats somehow succeed in abolishing the filibuster within the next six months or so, only to see the Republicans obtain "trifecta control" in Washington - the White House, plus majorities in both houses of Congress - come 2025?

In that case, look for the Republicans to pursue a scorched-earth agenda, repealing every piece of progressive legislation dating all the way back to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 - and to quote Billy Jack in the movie that bears his name, there won't be one God-damn thing that the Democrats will be able to do about it.

Apparently Joe Manchin (and maybe Biden as well) seems to be the only one who is concerned about this.

[Eric the Green]

(12-11-2021, 02:54 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-20-2021, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-19-2021, 05:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We are witnessing the emergence of a proto-fascist movement that has a categorically different disdain for democracy, multiculturalism, and the rule of law than anything we’ve seen in generations.

Please join me in this simple but essential commitment:

I am outraged by the rise of neo-fascism in America. Democracy cannot exist at the end of a gun. We must stand up to right-wing leaders who foment, glorify, and even perpetrate political violence.

It's impossible to argue that we are not in degraded times.  The only question left to be answered: will fascism win?  It's never possible to know the answer until it's revealed, but it's not looking good at the moment.  The public just doesn't care.

For the fascists, time is of the essence: The 2020 U.S. Census revealed a country that is (rounded off to the nearest whole percentage point) 60% white, 19% Hispanic*, 13% African-American, 6% Asian, and 2% "Indigenous American" (a category that now includes Hawaiians, Samoans etc. as well as American Indians and Alaskan Natives; i.e., the people formerly known as Eskimos).

*All persons who satisfy the criteria for designation as "Hispanic" are classified as such, irrespective of their other characteristics (i.e., skin color).

The point being that by 2040, or slightly later, the white share of the U.S. population will fall below 50% - a prospect that whites in general, and older whites in particular, are nothing short of paranoid about.

This is why the fascists have to make their move certainly within the next 20 years - and quite possibly within the next 10 years.

And when they do make that move, the Second Civil War will be at hand - and the left won't give a tinker's damn who they need to collaborate with, be it Russia, China, or even Iran, thus echoing the 2T's chants of "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win" - just as the Social Gospel directly led to the New Deal, the abolitionist movement foreshadowed the Civil War, the colonial Great Awakening foreshadowed the American Revolution, the Puritan Awakening foreshadowed the Glorious Revolution (on both sides of the Atlantic), and the Reformation set the stage for the War of the Spanish Armada.

Of course, you have your categories mixed up again Anthony. The Left was shouting "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win" (and I may have joined in once or twice) because the Left was not supporting a war to install a right-wing dictator by force into a country that was artificially divided and which wanted to be free of dominance by colonial powers like France and the USA. The Left in this country today is still moderate by world standards, and does not support today's Russia, China or Iran.

The Left in the sixties indeed provided the agenda that our cold civil war turning (which may be turning hot) is to institute, if the pattern you mentioned holds. That means the Left will need to defeat the racist fascists, who are also neoliberals who label any social program that benefits the people instead of a wealthy few "socialist." That means the Left will act to restrain climate change and pollution, and the capture of wealth and power in the USA by the neoliberal oligarchs, and end the fascist right-wing attempt to destroy democracy that is now going on, as well as to restore consciousness of how racism has shaped our history, and make sure that all peoples of different races and ethnic groups have equal rights and opportunities. This is the program of The Left since the Great Awakening of the sixties, in a counter-culture and a series of social movements that together were greater than any in history.

An alliance I see developing, and which I predicted in my new book, was encouraged by a conference this week hosted by President Biden (although it included some questionable or phony "democracies"), and it is an alliance to help all the people rising up in sixties-style people-power movements all around the world to restrain or overthrow the tyrants that have taken power in the last decade or more around the world today, very similar to those of the 1930s, as well as such movements happening within the democratic countries themselves, such as in the USA, France, etc. 

Will such an alliance include supplying some military or arms assistance to the people whose tyrants have monopolized access to weapons? Will allies be needed from abroad to help us overthrow Trump or other tyrant Republicans who destroy democracy here and take power? Or to help a Democratic government put down an expanded version of January 6th? I don't know, but I don't see the Left, in its attempt to restore democracy from the fascists terrified of other ethnic groups taking over the USA, turn to other tyrants in order to restore democracy here in the USA.

[Eric the Green]

(12-11-2021, 10:24 PM)Anthony Wrote: Whether or not to end the filibuster at all constitutes a high-stakes game of chicken.

What if the Democrats somehow succeed in abolishing the filibuster within the next six months or so, only to see the Republicans obtain "trifecta control" in Washington - the White House, plus majorities in both houses of Congress - come 2025?

In that case, look for the Republicans to pursue a scorched-earth agenda, repealing every piece of progressive legislation dating all the way back to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 - and to quote Billy Jack in the movie that bears his name, there won't be one God-damn thing that the Democrats will be able to do about it.

Apparently Joe Manchin (and maybe Biden as well) seems to be the only one who is concerned about this.

Meanwhile, Joe Manchin is too chicken to bypass the filibuster when necessary even without repealing it, in order to pass voting rights legislation-- without which Republicans will be able to install party hacks as election officials and enable legislators to cancel the vote of the people and just decide to give electoral votes to the Republicans regardless of the vote in their states.

The filibuster will need to be removed if the Republicans remain an extremist Party that opposes all needed actions to protect our country and our world. We are in emergency times, and emergency measures are needed. What will be needed as well is for Senate seats to be given to Puerto Rico and DC to cement the Democratic majority. But right now this can't be done without bypassing or abolishing the filibuster too.

If enough Democrats are ever elected to the Senate, giving seats to DC and PR could even enable Democrats to pass needed legislation without the need to fully or permanently repeal the filibuster. Repealing it is a dangerous move, indeed, but one which the Republicans have already pursued successfully in order to install a right-wing supreme court. Turnabout is fair play.

If the demographic changes due in the USA are enough to overturn neoliberalism and prejudice and their 40-year rulership of the USA, then maybe we can return to normal times by the end of the 4T, and such moves as ending the filibuster entirely won't be needed. But the filibuster has become today merely a way to make our government unable to function. That is the only purpose of the filibuster today, since it must be outvoted for every piece of proposed legislation before a debate even begins. This kind of filibuster is not traditional and is certainly not in the constitution. Legislators who want to filibuster a bill should be required to do it the old fashioned way, and be required to speak continuously like Jimmy Stewart did in the movie or that southerners did against the civil rights bill.

[Anthony '58]

We installed (or maintained) a lot of right-wing dictators during the Cold War, including some utterly reprehensible characters like the "chomo" Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, and the apartheidists in Rhodesia and South Africa, in whose comparison the Thieu regime in South Vietnam totally paled, on the theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

And the term "neoliberalism" needs to be retired, on the grounds of the confusion it causes - at least in the United States anyway.  A far more concise alternative would be neoclassical liberalism, since it seeks to re-create the policies advocated by Adam Smith, in more-or-less unvarnished form (furthermore, as Michael Lind so correctly pointed out in Up From Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America, what distinguishes neoliberals from conservatives is their respective stances on social and "moral" issues, just like what distinguishes left-liberals from national liberals - like present company! - is their respective stances on economic issues).

So far as Joe Manchin goes: How can he possibly behave any differently from the way he does, representing as he does a state that Donald Trump won by 39 points in 2020?

And I guess that the House would have no input on the Washington D.C./Puerto Rico question - plus Hawaii can be given a third congressional district (and fifth electoral vote) by adding such Pacific territories as American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands to it (the Virgin Islands can also be made part of the state of Puerto Rico - but it is doubtful that doing so would increase the number of House seats/or electoral votes accruing to Puerto Rico, due to the small populations of the three islands).

But the most useful reform of all for the House is to divide the population of each state by the population of the least populous state (currently Wyoming) to determine how many House seats each state gets, rounding off the result to the nearest full seat.  This would result in California having 69 House seats, instead of the 52 it will have starting with 2020 election.  This, together with the one seat to which Washington D.C. would be entitled, Puerto Rico's six (with or without the Virgin Islands), and Hawaii's third seat (as above), that's 443 House seats (up from the present 435) right there - and in addition to California adding 17 seats, Texas, Florida, New York, etc. would get multiple additional seats as well, and so on down the line.  We might even end up with a House consisting of exactly 500 seats - the UK, with one-fifth our population, has 650 seats in its House of Commons; and many key constituencies, such as Staten Island, would henceforth have stand-alone seats in the House (New York's 11th Congressional District encompasses, in addition to all of Staten Island, portions of the southwesternmost tier of neighborhoods in Brooklyn).

And with the enhanced clout given to states like California and New York in the Electoral College, there would be no need to abolish the EC - at least for the time being.

[Eric the Green]

(12-12-2021, 07:38 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote: We installed (or maintained) a lot of right-wing dictators during the Cold War, including some utterly reprehensible characters like the "chomo" Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, and the apartheidists in Rhodesia and South Africa, in whose comparison the Thieu regime in South Vietnam totally paled, on the theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

That's right, although we didn't go to war for them. Thieu was just another one of these, though. Not worth all the lost lives and minds. The Vietnamese regime is not the worst communist regime either.

I don't think the USA supported aparteid in Africa, and from the 1980s it supported boycotts against South Africa to support the freedom movement there. I don't know about Stroessner either. Support for dictators by the USA is more clear in cases like The Phillippines and South Korea in the 1950s and 60s, and banana republic regimes and contra rebels in Central and South America and the Caribbean, and support for Israel's enemies like Egypt, and even today support for Israel and Saudi Arabia and the Saudi attack on Yemen.

Quote:And the term "neoliberalism" needs to be retired, on the grounds of the confusion it causes - at least in the United States anyway.  A far more concise alternative would be neoclassical liberalism, since it seeks to re-create the policies advocated by Adam Smith, in more-or-less unvarnished form (furthermore, as Michael Lind so correctly pointed out in Up From Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America, what distinguishes neoliberals from conservatives is their respective stances on social and "moral" issues, just like what distinguishes left-liberals from national liberals - like present company! - is their respective stances on economic issues).

It's a confusing term, but it won't be retired just because some people say so. Neoliberalism is a more determined and insistent type of classical liberalism.

As I said, there may be some neoliberals (aka economic conservatives) who are social liberals, especially in the media like Lind, but they are rare. In fact, they are two authoritarian ideologies that fit together, especially because the main supporters at the polls of neoliberalism are white rural Americans who resent paying welfare taxes to blacks, and these same people are also fanatic conservative Christians. Support for the religious right and opposition to "socialism" is what characterizes most conservatives and Trump supporters these days. And the corresponding alliance is true on the left. Most left-liberals today are liberal both socially and economically. They vehemently oppose both the religious right's supposed morality and also oppose neoliberalism.

Also, since neoliberals are strongly against democracy, this authoritarianism also finds an ally among conservative Christians who want to impose authoritarian religion and traditional authoritarian values on the country. Also, the neoliberals' opposition to democracy separates them entirely from their classical liberal forbears.

Today the economic issues are the most polarized. Most Republicans support Reaganomics/neoliberalism, and most Democrats oppose it. A few Republicans oppose Trump's extremism, especially on some social issues, but they still support neoliberalism.

Quote:So far as Joe Manchin goes: How can he possibly behave any differently from the way he does, representing as he does a state that Donald Trump won by 39 points in 2020?

I'm not sure he can go against the Republicans in his state, unless those voters decide to support Democratic proposals. On the other hand, he is a Democrat, and the Party needs him to actually be one. Right now, Republican policy includes removing democracy. Can any Democrat really allow this to happen?

Quote:And I guess that the House would have no input on the Washington D.C./Puerto Rico question - plus Hawaii can be given a third congressional district (and fifth electoral vote) by adding such Pacific territories as American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands to it (the Virgin Islands can also be made part of the state of Puerto Rico - but it is doubtful that doing so would increase the number of House seats/or electoral votes accruing to Puerto Rico, due to the small populations of the three islands).

But the most useful reform of all for the House is to divide the population of each state by the population of the least populous state (currently Wyoming) to determine how many House seats each state gets, rounding off the result to the nearest full seat.  This would result in California having 69 House seats, instead of the 52 it will have starting with 2020 election.  This, together with the one seat to which Washington D.C. would be entitled, Puerto Rico's six (with or without the Virgin Islands), and Hawaii's third seat (as above), that's 443 House seats (up from the present 435) right there - and in addition to California adding 17 seats, Texas, Florida, New York, etc. would get multiple additional seats as well, and so on down the line.  We might even end up with a House consisting of exactly 500 seats - the UK, with one-fifth our population, has 650 seats in its House of Commons; and many key constituencies, such as Staten Island, would henceforth have stand-alone seats in the House (New York's 11th Congressional District encompasses, in addition to all of Staten Island, portions of the southwesternmost tier of neighborhoods in Brooklyn).

And with the enhanced clout given to states like California and New York in the Electoral College, there would be no need to abolish the EC - at least for the time being.

There's an idea that might allow the EC to function. I don't know if anyone is proposing it.

Right now, without this, CA and NY don't have enough EC votes now and are losing them. So, the red states are getting more clout, and to me that's at least a reason to give EC votes to Puerto Rico and make them a state. I would support ending the electoral college because it gives too much clout to small rural states, and it's not the will of the people. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only hope now is for red states to go more blue. It's a slow process and the Republicans are successfully resisting this, at least for now.

[pbrower2a]

(12-12-2021, 07:38 AM)Anthony Wrote: We installed (or maintained) a lot of right-wing dictators during the Cold War, including some utterly reprehensible characters like the "chomo" Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, and the apartheidists in Rhodesia and South Africa, in whose comparison the Thieu regime in South Vietnam totally paled, on the theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

When one deals with the Devil, one must expect to be burned. 

Quote:And the term "neoliberalism" needs to be retired, on the grounds of the confusion it causes - at least in the United States anyway.  A far more concise alternative would be neoclassical liberalism, since it seeks to re-create the policies advocated by Adam Smith, in more-or-less unvarnished form (furthermore, as Michael Lind so correctly pointed out in Up From Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America, what distinguishes neoliberals from conservatives is their respective stances on social and "moral" issues, just like what distinguishes left-liberals from national liberals - like present company! - is their respective stances on economic issues).

Neoliberal is to liberal what democratic centralism is to democratic, or for that matter what national socialism was to socialism. We might as well recognize neoliberalism as plutocracy with no 'social' conservatism unless as part of some sleazy compromise in a power-grab with people who are illiberal on sexual freedom and cultural diversity. 

I can't say what word I can use to describe someone like me who recognizes the validity of traditions that fit only one culture. I have a high regard for many Asian-American cultures, but I could never be part of one of them.    

Quote:So far as Joe Manchin goes: How can he possibly behave any differently from the way he does, representing as he does a state that Donald Trump won by 39 points in 2020?

In a way West Virginia was long a great place to be a do-nothing Democrat, as when the United Mine Workers Union dominated the electorate and ensured that one could ignore education, roads, and public health when the coal mines offered plenty of well-paying jobs that needed little education, miners did not need to make long commutes, and a huge majority of people got excellent health care (of course if one worked in a coal mine one needed that) due to a strong union. Now that the coal seams are spent, Republicans can offer the same substandard education (all the better for making people amenable to FoX Propaganda Channel), bad roads (coal miners didn't need to commute, and good roads would get one out of West Virginia), and poor public health (let 'em eat opioid drugs). 
  

Quote:And I guess that the House would have no input on the Washington D.C./Puerto Rico question - plus Hawaii can be given a third congressional district (and fifth electoral vote) by adding such Pacific territories as American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands to it (the Virgin Islands can also be made part of the state of Puerto Rico - but it is doubtful that doing so would increase the number of House seats/or electoral votes accruing to Puerto Rico, due to the small populations of the three islands).

I'd authorize those small populated districts one Representative each but no Senators -- and one electoral vote each. 

Quote:But the most useful reform of all for the House is to divide the population of each state by the population of the least populous state (currently Wyoming) to determine how many House seats each state gets, rounding off the result to the nearest full seat.  This would result in California having 69 House seats, instead of the 52 it will have starting with 2020 election.  This, together with the one seat to which Washington D.C. would be entitled, Puerto Rico's six (with or without the Virgin Islands), and Hawaii's third seat (as above), that's 443 House seats (up from the present 435) right there - and in addition to California adding 17 seats, Texas, Florida, New York, etc. would get multiple additional seats as well, and so on down the line.  We might even end up with a House consisting of exactly 500 seats - the UK, with one-fifth our population, has 650 seats in its House of Commons; and many key constituencies, such as Staten Island, would henceforth have stand-alone seats in the House (New York's 11th Congressional District encompasses, in addition to all of Staten Island, portions of the southwesternmost tier of neighborhoods in Brooklyn).

It makes sense, so it is a sure failure in politics. Does anyone believe that American politics is now a rational process? Much of it depends upon bamboozling people or ensuring that people can't get what they need. Example: you can use a 1990 road map to get around the San Francisco Bay Area very well because the last major highway built (other than a reconstruction of the earthquake-demolished Cypress Street Viaduct in Oakland) was California 85 around the west and south of San Jose.  There have been some toll roads built in Orange and San Diego Counties, but that is about it south of the San Gabriel Mountains. OK, California finally built a freeway to replace an infamous intersection that can be a 30-minute ordeal in a desert at California 58 (which might eventually be an extension of Interstate 40 about 100 years after a freeway was planned to replace the overall road when it was US 466 back in 1947. The political realities radicalize Californians n the Left but ensure that the leftists elected prove ineffective. 

Quote:And with the enhanced clout given to states like California and New York in the Electoral College, there would be no need to abolish the EC - at least for the time being.

The tiny states in population go favorable representation on the assumption that gigantic Virginia would overpower Rhode Island in politics... now the privilege ensures that low-population states get more than their share of federal funding.