A new Washington Post "analysis" informs us that the Senate and Electoral College are biased in favor of small red states. Also that political polarization has increased and trust in government has decreased.
This is not exactly big news. But at least it's all true. On the other hand, despite all this there's been a lot of substantial action under the past three presidents:
- Wall Street reform
- Auto industry rescue
- Obamacare
- DACA
- 2017 tax cut
- Operation Warp Speed
- Withdrawal from Afghanistan
- IRA, CHIPS Act, Infrastructure Act, and 2021 stimulus
- Global unity on Ukraine
- Electoral Count Reform Act
This is not the record of a country hobbled by gridlock or the demise of democracy, no matter how loud and belligerent members of Congress are these days. Plus there's this:
- Donald Trump is facing four separate felony trials
As for the unfairness of Congress and the presidency, since 2000 Democrats have held the presidency for 12 years and Republicans for 12 years. The House has been in Democratic hands for 8 years and the Senate for 13. The number of federal judges is split almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans. This doesn't strike me as demonstrating any fundamental unfairness in a country that's been split 50-50 for more than two decades.
There are gripes on both sides about unpopular policies that nonetheless remain in effect—abortion for liberals, immigration for conservatives.
And yet, things continue to putter along. It's true that suicides are up a bit; weather has gotten crazy as the world continues to warm; and we still haven't figured out how to educate Black children decently. Also, the Republican Party long ago went insane. On the other hand, the economy is good; COVID is no longer a threat; we are making slow progress on solar and EVs and other climate change mitigations; and until COVID hit people continued to report that they were happy. In other words, aside from the fact that we're all spitting mad at each other, things seem fairly normal these days.
Things do not seem fairly normal these days whatsoever. I'm generally optimistic and very solution-oriented. I don't have analysis paralysis for life decisions nor do I cry over spilled milk.
But everything sure seems more and more fucked every day, by the numbers. The world is literally on fire. Climate change sure looks like it's happening faster than anybody thought. There is nothing but bad news on that front. Economically, the plutocrats continue to win victory after victory, and it doesn't look reversible short of actual violent conflict - which also seems less and less likely with each small upgrade in the collective standard of living. The slow slide into dystopian futures. Boomers may not be alive for it, but I sure as hell will be (y'know, barring sudden death). And then there's housing and day to day living...
Note that this is not mutually exclusive with being happy on a day to day basis. Personally, my life is pretty alright, but it's in spite of the entire world continuing to crumble and burn. I'm privileged that this is the case for me. And it may not always be the case for me, either.
Regarding climate doomism, I'd suggest at least skimming David Friedman:
https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/
For example:
https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/climate-and-the-media-i
And if you want a liberal:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/opinion/climate-change-should-you-have-kids.html
@cmayo:
The sky has always been falling. Always has been, always will be …
There's crying wolf, and then there's being realistic.
This is an absurd and insulting rubric. Using "how many years each party has occupied the presidency" as a rubric for fairness is absurd.
The actual rubric should be "based on the expressed preferences of the electorate, how many years SHOULD each party have occupied the Presidency?"
And under that rubric the number shouldn't be twelve and twelve, it should be twenty and four. The Republicans straight-up stole 2000, there was a judicial coup you might remember, and 2016 represents a failure state; someone who got a non-plurality minority of votes was allowed to occupy the Presidency, which is an outcome that should result in any sane person going "this system is grotesquely unfair."
You also keep citing the split of federal judges as if that means something. Federal judges are obligated to obey the orders of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court currently has ZERO Republican members on it who can be regarded as legitimate. But you don't make the case that this is fair, because that's much harder than totaling up federal judgeships, all of whom are obligated to do shit like enforce Dobbs and Rucho and Shelby County, and say "looks fair to me!"
Oh, and there's this:
The Republican Party has declared that it will keep doing coup attempts until one succeeds, and at the state level is governing like deranged theocrats. This is normal to you?
Not to mention that right now in 25 states, half the population's reproductive health care options are limited, and limited in ways that go beyond "can they get an abortion?" But hey, it's balanced 50-50, so that's pretty normal, right?
I guess since only a few states are politicizing public education directives -- to the point where a few long established universities are essentially ruining their reputations --and directly punishing speech, that's cool, too. As long as it's not over half the country!
"This is an absurd and insulting rubric."
Amen.
Whatever you might think of Clinton, Obama, Biden, there's no comparison to the other two presidents from the last 30 years, Bush II and Trump. There's no way you can equate a D president and an R president. It's a category error. They are completely different entities.
+1 Lol
Well, Justice Thomas was appointed by a Republican President who won both a popular and Electoral College majority (GHW Bush), and was confirmed by the Senate; so we have to count him as legitimately elevated; even if we now think he ought to be impeached and removed for ethics violations. Otherwise, spot on, and don’t forget Bruen.
He should have never ever been confirmed but the older white guys said nah, no problem don't care if he's an a-hole around women.
Generally concur with Murc. Looking at the last five elections - 20 years - the average presidential vote was D 50.4 and R 47.3. I suspect that if you look at similar averages for House or Senate you will find similar results. 50-50 is a convenient simplification that gets repeated endlessly by the mainstream press, but it's just not accurate. It's close to accurate but that closeness is often used as an apologia for all kinds of ridiculous arguments. Kevin, you're better than that! You take great pains to be precise. Yes, there are a lot of people on both sides of virtually any issue that you can count, but D's have had small but consistent lead across the board and that gets swept away by the false statement that we're in a 50-50 country. We're not. Furthermore, R's know it.
I agree. We are not a 50-50 country. Thinking so is a fallacy, a distortion of reality, and the truth is that politics is not played on a level-playing field. There are gross inequalities in the design of the structures, laws, and norms of our political divisions, and for the most part they favor Republicans, who do not even pretend to compete for support from the majority. They can achieve what they want through minority rule.
Almost all our problems in government -- polarization, the no-can-do approach to problem-solving, batshit insanity on the right -- are a result of that Republican structural advantage.
This. I've thought before that, if a space alien came to earth, had our electoral system explained to it, and then devised a strategy to win elections, it would look a bit like the Republican party: go after the cheapest votes.
It's _easier_ and cheaper to build a Senate coalition with small rural states; it's easier and cheaper to win the electoral college by, again, favoring smaller and rural states. So said space alien would think about what issues appeal to the rurals, and then go about politicking on those issues (and/or manufacturing that appeal).
Outsized electoral influence in small states works (sorta) when there is a Vermont for every Idaho, and a Texas for every California, but if one party switches to a strategy of going after the more valuable votes only, you end up with a situation where you get alternating leadership by party despite one party consistently being in majority and the other consistently in the minority.
" Looking at the last five elections - 20 years - the average presidential vote was D 50.4 and R 47.3. "
With these numbers, and assuming the president has to be either D or R, then R should have it a little less than half and D a little more than half. The difference should be a little more than 0.5 year. So having the same number of years is not that unfair.
The congress is more unfair, and the Supreme Court is really bad.
You’re quoting a score to a game that was never played. Do you think if the popular vote was what mattered any candidate would have campaigned the same way? The final popular vote would have been different in every election. (Not saying they would have flipped, but they would have been different.) Candidates would adjust messages and campaign in states they know they won’t win outright because they want to better the margins.
Election by national popular vote would change the way candidates campaign, but I don’t think it would have changed the popular-vote winner in any election since radios became a household item. ‘Messaging’ can’t be confined within state boundaries. And most of the concerns that affect the choices voters make — inflation, perceptions of crime rates, economic prospects — are broadly shared around the nation.
Democrats appoint jurists highly rated by the Bar Association. Republicans appoint fruitcakes highly rated by the Federalist Society. One jurist (and probably not 100) does not compensate for one fruitcake.
This can't be stated enough when Kevin does his judge counting score sheet. I mean seriously, if you put in a blender Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito and Thomas do you really come out at the center of any sort of normal universe?
"As for the unfairness of Congress and the presidency, since 2000 Democrats have held the presidency for 12 years and Republicans for 12 years."
And only four of those twelve years had a popular mandate. Which also happens to be only the second popular mandate a Republican President has had in my lifetime. Yet I've been under Republican Presidencies as often as not, and am hardly young anymore. Doesn't seem all that fair to me, but then I have the unusual view that one vote should count for one vote.
I can understand this post in the context of a correction against rampant doomism that you see everywhere. The country is chugging along, things haven't gone completely off the rails, despite the tension that comes with 24/7 cable news and social media. But I think it goes a little too far. We've got some pretty deep problems, such that I'm becoming increasingly concerned that they won't be solved politically or that they won't become catastrophic.
I suppose the other corrective point I'd make is that things look pretty bleak to modern Whites, but for POC things have been pretty bad for most of our nation's history. So the saving grace is that we've always been violating people's rights or preventing suffrage? But we do seem to be backsliding on some of our progress.
My basis for comparison is the 1950s of McCarthy, the turmoil and violence of the late 60's, Tricky Dick, the senior idiot, which was what I was calling RR so yeah, I pretty much agree with the country doing not so bad. If we get past TFG and the transition from Biden to whomever, we could be pretty good.
I was just talking with a friend about how there is this absurd trend to think humanity had it perfect 50 years ago. By any measure, including % killed by natural disaster, things are so much better now. But the Doom Industrial Complex…
Thank You. The prime example --- the percentage of humanity living in poverty now vs then
And it tires but does not surprise me when young people rail on Boomers for the horrific world we presumably left them. Not everything in roses and party time today, but did they ever think about the world the Boomers inherited? Things are so much better now. The tech, the opportunities for gay and non-white people and women? We lived under the shadow of nuclear annihilation for most of our youth. I could go on but some young person might say "Okay Boomer." (And I can only complain so much because we Boomers were also pretty harsh towards OUR older generation...)
If we look past the failed coup, the failed coup leader being nominated for President 4 years later and the ongoing womens health disaster....THINGS LOOK PRETTY NORMAL!
Lol. Brilliant!
A person that already tried a coup having a reasonable chance to become a president is very very very very far from normal.
The problem with lists like this is that it's selective, not representative. I'm hardly the doomer type, but it's not hard at all to come up with a countervailing list.
1. Democrats a year ago passed the most comprehensive climate legislation in history, yet all the positive trends to combat catastrophe are not nearly enough to save the planet and modern civilization
2. Women have lost their reproductive rights
3. For the first time in the post-Jim Crow era, access to civil rights is trending negative for nonwhites
4. Despite DJT's four indictments, we're about 15 months away from a narrow electoral vote, where a few votes in a few precincts will make the difference between today's "pretty normal" and descent into a chaotic, neo-nazi hellscape
5. A hurricane is about to land on Kevin Drum's house in Southern California
Pretty normal? Maybe not.
"4. Despite DJT's four indictments, we're about 15 months away from a narrow electoral vote, where a few votes in a few precincts will make the difference between today's "pretty normal" and descent into a chaotic, neo-nazi hellscape"
That is the optimistic view. I believe that if Trump loses by similar numbers to 2020, he will launch another coup attempt, this time much better organized and much more aggressive. I would give it at least 20% chance of leading to a civil war. So the "few votes in a few precincts " may not be enough.
If he loses by a bigger margin the danger is smaller.
The optimistic view is mine: I think Trump will be the Republican nominee, and he’ll go on to get shellacked in the general election. Yes, some of his cult will go nuts and perpetrate violence, but we’ll be better prepared, and they will be quickly dealt with.
I'd like to add maternal mortality riasing in the US and falling almost everwhere else.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/18/maternal-mortality-united-states-policy-solutions/
A classic of the Kevin Drum subgenre "That thing you're worried about? It's not a big deal to me."
All excellent points but the nightmare scenario is still possible: Biden has a stroke or something next year, it's Trump vs. Kamala and Trump sneaks in thanks to the electoral college. Then I think you have real trouble, like masses of people in California, New York and Massachusetts refusing to pay taxes to a government run by Trump/Kushner. I know I wouldn't.
I put some faith in the fact that people who were 10 years old when Trump was elected in 2016 can vote next year.
Every president is elected “ thanks to the electoral college”. That how we elect presidents here. And if it’s Kamala against Trump, I think Trump wins the popular vote. There are many republicans fed up with Trump who will vote Biden (or, more likely, leave it blank) but if Kamala is the dem nominee those people will vote for Trump to keep her out.
"trust in government has decreased".
It seems to be coming closer to where large numbers of people - that is Republicans - are willing to overthrow the government illegally or violently. If their guy is not President they think overthrow of the government is justified. Republicans' fantasies about the supposed crimes of Democrats (and other things) have gotten more and more detached from reality. Some type of coup seems far more probable than it has been since the Depression. When has there been this kind of widespread claim that elections are not valid? This is not normal and it is dangerous.
That poll on happiness is useless - people apparently just give the same answer no matter how things are really going. You need to look at poll questions that bear more directly on whether people might support government overthrow (for example).
True. I can be "happy" for a lot of reasons, most of them personal, and still be in a sour mood about "the way things are going." This is a better view for that:
Americans' Satisfaction With the Way Things Are Going in the U.S.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1669/general-mood-country.aspx
We are near the lowest level of satisfaction in 40 years, and it's been 20 years since we topped 50% on the satisfaction index. That's pretty damning.
Being the hard-boiled cynic that I am, I tend to see decreasing trust in government as increasing realism. I'm old enough to (barely) remember Kennedy's assassination. It was during LBJ's tenure that I learned never to accept an official White House statement as true without independent corroboration, and no president since then has given me any reason to change my mind about that.
It's a fact that politicians lie, and the higher up they are the more they lie. You simply CAN'T trust the rascals.
There's nothing normal about coups d'état in the American context. Maybe you mean "new" normal?
The country is pretty normal these days except...
- Roe was overturned
- SCOTUS may block OTC "abortion pill"
- Republicans are looking to block birth control pills
- 99% of Republicans would not vote to impeach a man who crimes and instigates violence
- July is the hottest month on record since monthly records of global temperatures were kept (1895)
- Republican states are blocking drug access (hormones and hormone blockers) to a select group of people - trans
- Republicans overwhelmingly still think it's okay for this country to be a little more authoritarian, but only if it is ruled by Republicans -- oh wait, that's totally normal
You're mostly right, but American governments, both federal and state and of both major parties plus, at the state level, some minor parties, have been blocking drug access for well over a century. Nixon christened it the War on Drugs, and it's still going on.
Wall Street reform - gutted, bad
Auto industry rescue - good
Obamacare - an increasingly frayed bandaid, push
DACA - exists by a thread no progress, push
2017 tax cut - bad
Operation Warp Speed - good
Withdrawal from Afghanistan - disaster with worse consequences, bad
IRA, CHIPS Act, Infrastructure Act, and 2021 stimulus -- far from enough mostly incredible because how far behind we are, push
Global unity on Ukraine -- not even, bad
Electoral Count Reform Act -- good
4 bads
3 goods
3 pushes
I disagree on Obamacare, imperfect but a significant improvement, good; on withdrawal from Afghanistan, inevitably chaotic but if the Afghan government couldn't handle the Taliban after TWENTY YEARS of nation building, they were never going to, good; on support for Ukraine, the right thing to do, good; 2021 stimulus, too much too late, bad; IRA, CHIPS Act, Infrastructure Act, not enough but better than nothing, good.
IRA, etc. is four things, not one thing, so I make it 9 good, 2 bad, 2 push.
I think this Pollyanna analysis gets some points wrong.
Firstly, a country where the Dems won the popular majority in Presidential elections every time but one is not exactly 50 : 50 (especially as the one Republican win came with help from Osama Bin Laden).
Secondly in spite of that we had to endure three terms of GOP presidents, one of them stolen by the Supreme Court. All three terms were disastrous (Irak War, Afghanistan War, barely avoided Social Security privatization, general lawlessness).
Not everything is "normal" in this picture.