![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And that's it for the third republic
Nov. 4th, 2020 12:21 amAnd as predicted by anyone paying attention, Trump is now going to the Supreme Court he filled with Bush v. Gore lawyers to stop vote counting while he appears to be ahead. Electorially, at least. He doesn't have the popular vote, again, not even now.
This is treason to Constitution and office, and the end of what I kind of think of as the third American Republic*, no matter how it goes. The system doesn't survive only one party being interested in representative democracy, and the Republicans just aren't into that.
Really, I think that Lindsey Graham's comments the other day were basically the offer on the table. The vision, if you would. A lot of us pointed at it talking about how awful it was - his statement that as long as you're a conservative, anti-abortion, "traditional family structure" woman, you can do whatever you want, at least, within that framework.
You can have freedom - as long as straight (white) men go first, count most, and are really in charge. In particular, of you.
But after that, sure, do what you want.
It echoes what a rightist Republican I knew in the 90s used to muse about, a 'republic' where only conservatives had the right to vote, because everyone else is - in his words as I recall them - 'objectively wrong.' It was echoed in the first version of the Hastart Rule, the short-lived one, where if something couldn't pass with only Republican votes, it wouldn't be allowed to pass at all, even if a majority of Republicans favoured it, because Democrats couldn't be allowed to matter. (They walked that back quickly, finding it untenable; the second version was "nothing could pass without a majority of Republicans in support," for exactly the same reasons.) It showed up again in the early 2000s, with Republicans nattering about Bush bringing back the military from Iraq and arresting that interfering Democratic Congress, to install a more conservative - as I recall, the word he used was "pliable" - legislature.
And now, here we are. Where votes don't matter either, unless they're Republican.
That's not a republic. That's at best a single-party strongman state, and at worst, outright fascist authoritarianism. And if he gets away with this? Then that's where we live, whether how we got there has some kind of bodged-together framework of pseudo-legality or not.
At 12:10am as I'm typing this, don't know whether the Republican Supreme Court will go along. It's treason of them to do so, of course. To the Constitution. Straight up treason. Despite that, I'm sure at least four of them will. But Roberts...
Remember, Roberts is Chief Justice. And the Chief Justice decides what cases get heard.
If he lets it get heard, I'm pretty sure they'll stop the counting, and hand the election to Trump, voters be damned. I'd like to be wrong about that, and hopefully I am, but I don't think I am. After all, as the traitor said outright, that's why they needed Barrett on the bench before the election.
_For_ the election.
For _this._
And no matter how it works out - even if they tell him to suck rocks - that's it for the republic. Even if it fails, you do not have a republic with only one party which respects democratic votes. And if it succeeds, well. You most certainly do not have a republic with only one party allowed to win. You most certainly _do not have_ a republic where only one party's votes count. You most certainly _do not have_ a republic where elections are stopped specifically to select the ruling party's preferred outcome.
And so, we do not have a republic.
The only question left at this point is - what do we have next?
*: Articles of Confederation, US before Civil War, US after Civil War
This is treason to Constitution and office, and the end of what I kind of think of as the third American Republic*, no matter how it goes. The system doesn't survive only one party being interested in representative democracy, and the Republicans just aren't into that.
Really, I think that Lindsey Graham's comments the other day were basically the offer on the table. The vision, if you would. A lot of us pointed at it talking about how awful it was - his statement that as long as you're a conservative, anti-abortion, "traditional family structure" woman, you can do whatever you want, at least, within that framework.
You can have freedom - as long as straight (white) men go first, count most, and are really in charge. In particular, of you.
But after that, sure, do what you want.
It echoes what a rightist Republican I knew in the 90s used to muse about, a 'republic' where only conservatives had the right to vote, because everyone else is - in his words as I recall them - 'objectively wrong.' It was echoed in the first version of the Hastart Rule, the short-lived one, where if something couldn't pass with only Republican votes, it wouldn't be allowed to pass at all, even if a majority of Republicans favoured it, because Democrats couldn't be allowed to matter. (They walked that back quickly, finding it untenable; the second version was "nothing could pass without a majority of Republicans in support," for exactly the same reasons.) It showed up again in the early 2000s, with Republicans nattering about Bush bringing back the military from Iraq and arresting that interfering Democratic Congress, to install a more conservative - as I recall, the word he used was "pliable" - legislature.
And now, here we are. Where votes don't matter either, unless they're Republican.
That's not a republic. That's at best a single-party strongman state, and at worst, outright fascist authoritarianism. And if he gets away with this? Then that's where we live, whether how we got there has some kind of bodged-together framework of pseudo-legality or not.
At 12:10am as I'm typing this, don't know whether the Republican Supreme Court will go along. It's treason of them to do so, of course. To the Constitution. Straight up treason. Despite that, I'm sure at least four of them will. But Roberts...
Remember, Roberts is Chief Justice. And the Chief Justice decides what cases get heard.
If he lets it get heard, I'm pretty sure they'll stop the counting, and hand the election to Trump, voters be damned. I'd like to be wrong about that, and hopefully I am, but I don't think I am. After all, as the traitor said outright, that's why they needed Barrett on the bench before the election.
_For_ the election.
For _this._
And no matter how it works out - even if they tell him to suck rocks - that's it for the republic. Even if it fails, you do not have a republic with only one party which respects democratic votes. And if it succeeds, well. You most certainly do not have a republic with only one party allowed to win. You most certainly _do not have_ a republic where only one party's votes count. You most certainly _do not have_ a republic where elections are stopped specifically to select the ruling party's preferred outcome.
And so, we do not have a republic.
The only question left at this point is - what do we have next?
*: Articles of Confederation, US before Civil War, US after Civil War
