It has been pointed out by many that this quote needs to be adjusted a bit, in that the arc can be bent toward justice. This is not a passive process. It takes action. Waiting for it to “just happen” gets us nowhere. Or worse.
11 Likes
Fair enough.
I think the rise of Trump and bigots saying the quiet parts out loud now is direct backlash against Obama- basically, the reality of a Black man as president drove the racists into a permanent frothing-at-the-mouth rage that will last the rest of their lives, and now hatred and vengeance are their sole motivators, even above their own survival or wellbeing. That’s not to blame Obama or those who voted for him (which includes myself), and, if anything, this level of backlash is a hopeful sign that progress is driving these bigots to desperation and we have them scared.
I just wish we didn’t live in a system so broken that the dying throes of the bigots present a real danger of propelling them all the way back into power and reviving their beliefs for generations to come. Trump or someone like him rising as a response to the progress Obama represents was inevitable, but him actually winning didn’t have to be. This should have been a one-two punch of the first Black president followed by the first woman president, but not enough attention was given to shoring up our election process and not enough people could be bothered to vote when it mattered most. I have hope that we can eke out another victory like we did in 2020, but until we actually address the root causes that allow the minority of Nazi voters to be disproportionately represented, any progress is temporary and fragile. If the bigots can’t increase their numbers fast enough, they’ll settle for decreasing ours, the nanosecond they gain enough power to get away with mass murder.
13 Likes
I’m using the Obama presidency as the start of complete and total obstructionism, which lines up pretty well with the filibuster stats, but you can certainly make a case for longer. I don’t think you can make a case for it being a shorter amount of time, though.
6 Likes
Did you forget about the Clinton presidency? Which was full of right wing vitrol and an impeachment trial? And conspiracy theories? Etc?
I’d argue that the far right was using first Clinton and then Obama as a way to activate racism (much like the Nixonian southern strategy and Reagan’s dog whistling). It did not just emerge after Obama (or during Obama’s term) but reached new levels with his presidency.
14 Likes
In my opinion Obama’s presidency is where it reached a critical tipping point into full-on cultish behavior, but I’m not saying it hadn’t been building beforehand or that anything previous wasn’t a factor- certainly, the Clinton-era hatred and conspiracy theories had a dramatic effect on Hillary Clinton’s campaign, independent of the racist backlash against Obama. I’m also not claiming an absolute truth here- I was a kid during Clinton’s administration and an adult during Obama’s, which may influence my perception of how the right has evolved.
11 Likes
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that this wasn’t in the works for decades prior to that. I think centering it on Obama does a real disservice to the historical understanding of what’s happening and has been happening with conservativism.
Clinton was the first president I was able to vote for (his re-election). There was very similar hysteria around the Clintons, too. Which is weird, considering he pursued “third wayism” as a president. But also, that could make some sense, because the GOP could see how clinton had wide appeal, his wife was representative of women’s activism politically, and that both posed a threat to the control of their own voters, who might find Clinton’s centrism attractive.
But I can see Obama (who also governed as a centrist) being the final straw for some who had come into the party because of the racist dogwhistling. In fact, we know that those elements were coming into the party, because the racist fringe has said that that was their strategy from the early 80s on.
8 Likes
He’s promised to balance the court, which he won’t be able to do without at least expanding it to match the number of federal court districts. If Dems gain control of both houses, you can bet they will put a court reform and expansion bill on his desk and he will be under massive pressure to sign it.
Regarding other democracy-defending legislation, remember that the barrier to eliminating the filibuster to pass such legislation was Mansema. One way or another, they won’t be the Dems’ problem in 2025.
9 Likes
It’s always projection. Always.
2 Likes
Articles about how Biden doesn’t want to expand the court aren’t great evidence for your belief that he will, and Brian Fallon is putting an awful lot of faith in the electorate to connect the dots between the court’s rulings and the election, let alone the ability for down-ballot candidates to make a significant impact on the issue in the face of opposition from the party’s presidential candidate.
You’re absolutely right that Manchin and Sinema will no longer be roadblocks. But Sinema was only a roadblock for six years, and this issue has been going on much longer than that. The nature of the Senate means that vulnerable democrats are relatively easy to find, and we’ve already established the price of a SCOTUS judge, which must be higher than a Senator, just based on supply and the length of time when the investment is valuable.
I’d love to be wrong, but when Durbin’s unwilling to hold hearings on Alito and Thomas’s ethical issues when they’re active stories before the election, it’s hard to imagine the dems increasing pressure if they win. I have a hard time seeing any major reforms happening until more of the old guard cycles out.
1 Like
You’ve missed the overwhelming characteristic of Biden’s presidency: he listens. If policy were determined by his own personal views, we would be in a very different (worse) place right now. But the one thing he’s shown consistently is adapting policy based on what expert are telling him. He’s also pledged to see Dobbs reversed. The only way that’s going to happen is with SCOTUS expansion.
If a Dem congress puts a court expansion bill in front of him, he will sign it.
10 Likes
Agree. Really, one could probably track it back to Nixon. But the Right’s response to Clinton was a new level in unhinged - for the time.
First, Bill Clinton made George W. Bush a one-timer. Now they couldn’t hold up Jimmy Carter as a “failed president, ha ha weak lame Dems” etc.
Then even worse, he won reelection. So they could no longer claim it was a fluke.
Then, worst of all, Clinton did an actual really good job. He raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy soared. The deficit actually dropped, the first time in decades. He legitimately improved NATO, and got us in and out of Kosovo to the thanks of our allies without a single US combat death. He brought a lasting piece to Northern Ireland, which is legitimately impressive.
Now there’s many things he did I didn’t like. But those were also mostly things conservatives liked - which made it even worse. 
He was better than them at getting done what they wanted too. (Or at least what they claimed in public.) He defied everything they wanted to complain about. They found no way to fault his job performance at all. So they freaked out en masse to an amazing degree.
But then, when a black man showed up and did an even better job while never losing his cool…they went absolute incandescent supernova apeshit. Definite and unimagined levels. Which I think then played into Trump’s wheelhouse. He was the one candidate who had no problem getting as crazy as the market would bear.
12 Likes
Historians who study movement conservativism have, in fact, done that.
That was the far right, racist wing making itself known, I’d argue. David Duke was running for office in the 90s, and Pat Buchannon, who shared many of the views of the racist right helped bring it into the mainstream of the party.
11 Likes
I’m glad those historians are correct : )
That was the far right, racist wing making itself known, I’d argue.
Yes, I’d agree there too. I’d diagnose it as Clinton taking all their justifications away. Buchanan, Duke et all love a grand faux-historical hierarchical outlook that justifies a juvenile view of “toughness” to further justify racism, sexism and classism. It’s not that they’re graspy authoritarians you see. It just so happens they’re the best, they didn’t make the natural law.
Along comes a man with a lot of charisma and intelligence and legislative skill, from a relatively humble background, who outdoes them even at things they pride themselves on, without being anywhere near as racist, sexist or classist.
So went the 90s, and Trump still can’t let it go.
9 Likes
Well, it’s the arguments that they’re making and they seem to be on pretty solid ground! I’m sure that other historians disagree, as that’s how we roll…
7 Likes
Yes, I agree, the ones agreeing with me are on solid ground. : )
2 Likes
Or they can be created.
Interest groups with lots of money buy republicans to get what they want, and then they buy centrist democrats to keep it. When a promising progressive runs, out come gobs of money and other help for primary challengers, especially if a republican win looks unlikely.
Even if it’s not a situation where a couple a-holes can decide a vote, a small group can delay, sidetrack, refer for more study, tie things up in committee, so that it never gets to a vote, all without stepping into the spotlight.
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
