David Pepper's opinion piece over at the Guardian seems salient:
In some cases, even when a majority of voters voted for one party to be in charge, the rigged districts meant that the losing party remained in charge. In Michigan, in 2018, voters chose Democrats over Republicans for their statehouse by 52%-47%. Nevertheless, this led to a Republican majority in that statehouse of 58-52. In Wisconsin, losing the popular vote for the statehouse across the state by a 54-45 gave Republicans a 63-36 supermajority in that statehouse. Now that would truly impress a foreign autocrat – a system locking a minority into power despite a clear mandate by the voters that they wanted the opposite.
The prime culprits behind all this election rigging are the statehouses themselves – mostly anonymous elected officials who few voters know but who wield far more power than most Americans appreciate. And that includes the power to draw the district lines of both federal and state representatives (ie their own districts), as well as establishing most of the other rules of how elections are run, including how presidential electors are divvied up.
if you talk to more nationalist types, you’ll find that the thing they want to defend about America is its limited government
So a defense budget topping $700 Billion a year is limited government? Laws PREVENTING private companies from making decision about health requirements for their workforce is limited government? Tax cuts that only accrue to a small percentage of the economy but saddle the rest with growing dependencies on government assistance is limited government? DOMA was limited government? Really?
he also took over steel production for a time because private businesses were being ... obstructionist. Yet he's never lumped in with 1950's communist dictators like Stalin and then Kruyschev who did the same thing. I've always wondered why that is.
so the decades of polling showing a consistent rise in self identified right wing authoritarianism are - as far as you are concerned - lies as well? Good to know.
A lot of elites wanted that outcome because people were literally dying on their doorsteps and they didn't want to be held accountable for crashing the economy in 1929. Not unlike now actually.
As bad as they were, Jim crow, the treatment of Native Americans, etc. were not the result of unilateral Presidential action, but the whole government to include the Congress. Jackson’s “trail of tears” was enabled by legislation. Slavery and Jim Crow were legal, not the product of Executive decree.
As I note above many of the actions of authoritarian dictators are enabled by legislation or legislative acquiescence. History shows that most authoritarian regimes are propped up by legislators. It doesn't make them any less authoritarian.
Desantis signs a bill that was passed by the Florida assembly to protect individual rights. Absolutely none of that is authoritarian. It’s quite the opposite.
Cause China, and Russia, and every tin pot dictator in South America never had compliant legislatures that did the same sort of thing? So if Congress passed a bill saying you can't ever get a job anywhere in the private sector unless you are vaccinated and boosted you'd be ok with that?
You'd think after Gabby Petito's death this would be front page news, with Republican politicians lining up to decry the evil Chinese who did this . . .
To be completely transparent I agree with you on FDR's incarceration of Japanese Americans. It makes all his other progressive ideas difficult to support.
You can see it in how they flip-flop on Executive power depending on which President holds office.
Both parties are quite consistent on this from - each uses the executive powers aggrandized by the other and each complains about the other doing so.
You'd think that's glaringly obvious, but right above you there is reference to a "laundry list" of authoritarian things the left is alleged to do. I mean, It doesn't get more dictatorial then the Governor of Florida - who claims a p[political allegiance that is supposedly hyper supportive of private sector capitalism - signing a law banning private corporations from imposing vaccine mandates, even though statistically a company will shell out much more money for unvaccinated people because private insurance is raising rates, and because such people are almost uniformly the people being hospitalized and dying (which also has economic impacts).
SO the lack of statistics is I think part of the problem. Aside from the study I cited that is profiled in the Atlantic, there isn't academic work on this - or polling. You'd think there would be; I could see Fox or Rasmuessen or Quinnipiac riding the topic hard. But so far they have avoided it.
As to history - the history of authoritarians being used as bogeymen in the US is history the Right owns whole hog. They built that scaremongering on the backs of authoritarian regimes (like the Soviets) cloaked themselves in left looking propaganda. The left never controlled the USSR, and doesn't control China now.
Do you mean that we don’t prosecute racism (or don’t do so enough), or that racist people influence the judicial system?
Both actually.
I think we’re talking about cases of decades-old legal discrimination, possibly generations-old.
Yes and? Emancipation corrected a generations old wrong, as did the Civil Rights Act (and for that matter the voting Rights Act). Why do we have no obligation to correct things which were done in our name simply because of how long ago they were done?
Show me an example of someone denying the statement “there has been legal racism in the United States”.
You won't see that exact statement. And that wasn't and isn't my point.
There are commenters here who are upset that a white man who was not guilty of the charges was found not guilty of the charges, and they’re upset because of the color of his skin.
You can use my name when you talk about me. No, really, I'm ok with it.
Unfortunately you aren't characterizing my objections correctly, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
My issue, and much of the left's issue, is that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted in a case that would have resulted in a black man being convicted of at least one of the many charges. We se the system functioning as it was designed, and we don't agree with that function.
I see proof that there has been legal racism in the US,
Many of those fighting CRT at school boards don't even see this, and they don't appear to want their kids taught even this.
but no proof that there currently is.
There are no longer laws that designate racism the way Jim Crow did. That doesn't mean there is no racism, nor does it mean there is no tolerance for racism in current law.
I don’t believe that it’s in the spirit of the American ideal, and it’s probably not legal, to combat past racial preferences with modern racial preferences.
why the heck not? What's wrong with doing things now that acknowledge the past hurts and seek to remedy them through government action? People who have been discriminated against can't as individuals overcome these injustices without help.
Those would be the options writ large. The issue the Left has is the very vocal parts of the right want everything regarding racism in America to be your first option and are using the label CRT to whip a frenzy to achieve that objective. They aren't engaged in reasoned debate about whether any of the others are acceptable, nor where CRT - the academic version - Actually fits into the discussion.
Republican politicians have created a wave of racial and economic grievance driven by propaganda created fear. They are now trying to ride that wave to permanent minority rule but white conservative males. Owning the libs is just another tactic toward that end.
The facts of this case are that Kyle Rittenhouse received a verdict the system is primed to deliver for him in no small measure because of his gender and race. A person of either differing gender or differing race or both would not likely have received the same verdict.
And given the circumstances that precipitated the demonstrations turned riots that led him to be in Kenosha, those facts are very pertinent to the verdict he was given by a system primed to hand him that verdict.
On “Yes, Democrats Do Have to Be Perfect”
David Pepper's opinion piece over at the Guardian seems salient:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/28/republicans-are-quietly-rigging-election-maps-to-ensure-permanent-rule
On “Some Unsolicited Advice For the January 6th Committee”
i am sure dozens of committee staff will argue this very point, only to be overruled by their members.
On “Is Leftist Authoritarianism A Thing Or Not?”
So a defense budget topping $700 Billion a year is limited government? Laws PREVENTING private companies from making decision about health requirements for their workforce is limited government? Tax cuts that only accrue to a small percentage of the economy but saddle the rest with growing dependencies on government assistance is limited government? DOMA was limited government? Really?
"
Except the actual OP doesn't argue that at all . . . .
"
"
he also took over steel production for a time because private businesses were being ... obstructionist. Yet he's never lumped in with 1950's communist dictators like Stalin and then Kruyschev who did the same thing. I've always wondered why that is.
"
so the decades of polling showing a consistent rise in self identified right wing authoritarianism are - as far as you are concerned - lies as well? Good to know.
"
Argentina was a banana republic with killing fields, a gulag of sorts and a wildly popular dynastic dictatorship.
"
A lot of elites wanted that outcome because people were literally dying on their doorsteps and they didn't want to be held accountable for crashing the economy in 1929. Not unlike now actually.
As I note above many of the actions of authoritarian dictators are enabled by legislation or legislative acquiescence. History shows that most authoritarian regimes are propped up by legislators. It doesn't make them any less authoritarian.
"
Cause China, and Russia, and every tin pot dictator in South America never had compliant legislatures that did the same sort of thing? So if Congress passed a bill saying you can't ever get a job anywhere in the private sector unless you are vaccinated and boosted you'd be ok with that?
On “Outcry Over Missing Chinese Tennis Star Peng Shuai Grows”
You'd think after Gabby Petito's death this would be front page news, with Republican politicians lining up to decry the evil Chinese who did this . . .
On “Is Leftist Authoritarianism A Thing Or Not?”
To be completely transparent I agree with you on FDR's incarceration of Japanese Americans. It makes all his other progressive ideas difficult to support.
Both parties are quite consistent on this from - each uses the executive powers aggrandized by the other and each complains about the other doing so.
"
I chose that governor as an example because he's being cast a Trump with a nicer veneer so that if rump doesn't run in 2024 he will.
You are correct about the national level though.
"
Indeed I was. You got me thinking . . . .
"
You'd think that's glaringly obvious, but right above you there is reference to a "laundry list" of authoritarian things the left is alleged to do. I mean, It doesn't get more dictatorial then the Governor of Florida - who claims a p[political allegiance that is supposedly hyper supportive of private sector capitalism - signing a law banning private corporations from imposing vaccine mandates, even though statistically a company will shell out much more money for unvaccinated people because private insurance is raising rates, and because such people are almost uniformly the people being hospitalized and dying (which also has economic impacts).
"
To what laundry list would you be referring?
"
SO the lack of statistics is I think part of the problem. Aside from the study I cited that is profiled in the Atlantic, there isn't academic work on this - or polling. You'd think there would be; I could see Fox or Rasmuessen or Quinnipiac riding the topic hard. But so far they have avoided it.
As to history - the history of authoritarians being used as bogeymen in the US is history the Right owns whole hog. They built that scaremongering on the backs of authoritarian regimes (like the Soviets) cloaked themselves in left looking propaganda. The left never controlled the USSR, and doesn't control China now.
On “A Different Look At How We Are Discussing CRT”
Both actually.
Yes and? Emancipation corrected a generations old wrong, as did the Civil Rights Act (and for that matter the voting Rights Act). Why do we have no obligation to correct things which were done in our name simply because of how long ago they were done?
You won't see that exact statement. And that wasn't and isn't my point.
On “Kyle Rittenhouse Found Not Guilty On All Counts”
You can use my name when you talk about me. No, really, I'm ok with it.
Unfortunately you aren't characterizing my objections correctly, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
My issue, and much of the left's issue, is that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted in a case that would have resulted in a black man being convicted of at least one of the many charges. We se the system functioning as it was designed, and we don't agree with that function.
On “A Different Look At How We Are Discussing CRT”
Many of those fighting CRT at school boards don't even see this, and they don't appear to want their kids taught even this.
There are no longer laws that designate racism the way Jim Crow did. That doesn't mean there is no racism, nor does it mean there is no tolerance for racism in current law.
why the heck not? What's wrong with doing things now that acknowledge the past hurts and seek to remedy them through government action? People who have been discriminated against can't as individuals overcome these injustices without help.
"
Which of your four options do you see as most true and why?
"
Those would be the options writ large. The issue the Left has is the very vocal parts of the right want everything regarding racism in America to be your first option and are using the label CRT to whip a frenzy to achieve that objective. They aren't engaged in reasoned debate about whether any of the others are acceptable, nor where CRT - the academic version - Actually fits into the discussion.
On “Kyle Rittenhouse Found Not Guilty On All Counts”
Agreed
"
Republican politicians have created a wave of racial and economic grievance driven by propaganda created fear. They are now trying to ride that wave to permanent minority rule but white conservative males. Owning the libs is just another tactic toward that end.
"
The facts of this case are that Kyle Rittenhouse received a verdict the system is primed to deliver for him in no small measure because of his gender and race. A person of either differing gender or differing race or both would not likely have received the same verdict.
And given the circumstances that precipitated the demonstrations turned riots that led him to be in Kenosha, those facts are very pertinent to the verdict he was given by a system primed to hand him that verdict.