The term “loyal opposition” to refer to the party the out of power in a democracy derives from the British parliamentary system, in which the ultimate loyalty is to the Crown.
Its use in the American context is a tad ambiguous, since we have no monarchy. And, in the British system as evolved, the monarchy has little influence over government policy. But, in America, if it means anything, “loyal opposition” mostly means that the party out of power is free to oppose the policies of the party in power, but remains loyal to the somewhat more fundamental elements of the Constitution and the system of politics.
Theoretically that allows the governing party to govern even as the opposition party makes the case that it should be put into power by the voters at the next election.
“The saving assumption of the loyal opposition, Michael Ignatieff, former leader of the Liberal Party in Canada and President of the Central European University, has written, is that ‘in the house of democracy, there are no enemies.’ When politicians treat each other as enemies, ‘legislatures replace relevance with pure partisanship. Party discipline reigns supreme … negotiation and compromise are rarely practiced, and debate within the chamber becomes as venomously personal as it is politically meaningless.’
“Republicans in the United States Congress, many of whom endorsed groundless claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged, it now seems clear, have changed the meaning of ‘loyal’ to obeisance to party rather than to democratic principles. And the decision of GOP leaders in the House and Senate to block a bi-partisan commission to investigate the January 6 assault on the Capitol serves as the most recent example” of how Republicans have changed the definition of loyal opposition.
The U.S. system is quite different from parliamentarianism. Unlike a prime minister, a president gets his mandate directly from a popular election (mediated by the silly Electoral College mechanism). But there is no guarantee that the president’s party will control either or both houses of Congress. If the opposition party controls either house of Congress and can’t reach a compromise over policy with the president and his allies, America can have gridlock and has no mechanism to force a new election to break the gridlock.
Of course, at the moment, President Joe Biden’s party does have (very small) majorities in both houses of Congress. But, between the fact (which also would be out-of-keeping with norms of a parliamentary system) that some Democrats oppose some of Biden’s policies, and the fact that there are other undemocratic elements of the U.S. system (like the filibuster in the Senate, for example, which enables a minority of members to prevent a bill from coming to a vote), there is plenty of reason to believe that the newly elected president will be unable to enact key elements of his program.
We are somewhat used to these things, but not to the current level of dysfunctionality that may paralyze congressional lawmaking.
The Constitution hasn’t been amended to make this level of gridlock possible. But several of the U.S. norms that used to make things work have lost their power to do so. A president, elected with a solid mandate to govern, and blessed with his party controlling both houses of Congress, may not be able to do the things he was elected to do.
In a parliamentary system such a circumstance might trigger a new election, to create a situation in which the government can govern. We don’t have that option.
By removing the “loyal” part?
What were they going to investigate? Were the Capital police told to stand down? Were they deliberately left on their own? Were they incited by people from the government other then Trump or the Right? Was this a gambit not just to get Trump out of office, but to turn America into more of a police State plutocracy than it is?
My guess is the only point would be to institute a new War on Terror in America, which of course would be pointed at anyone left or right who questions the status quo, plutocratic, more for the few and less for the many.
While most of the media weeps for Democracy but has nothing to say about the plutocracy/aristocracy that America has become.
Give it a rest. Millions of words have been written about inequality and concentration of wealth in this country, but yeah, the media ignores that problem.
And I guess an ethno-fascist movement wouldn’t be such a big deal if only they’d promise to do something about the plutocracy!
“Give it a rest…” So, despite nothing at all having been done about it, and no real movement in that direction, nothing more need be said about it? Even though you admit the media basically runs cover for it?
As for your ethno-fascists needing to be rounded up, are you ok then too rounding up BLM, and those protesting pipelines, or protesting any corporation or concentration of wealth, or working conditions, or animal mistreatment, because when you give extra-ordinary powers to law enforcement that is what happens, as sure as the sun rises and sets. Never mind that the inevitable product of our various “War on…” such as that of drugs is to exacerbate the problem?
And btw maybe there is more common cause about the plutocracy among many of those supposed “ethno-fascists” than you know, if you weren’t so certain the media portrayal/broad brush of them is accurate?
There is a massive, massive, massive difference bn peaceful protestors (example: BLM) and insurrectionists, seditionists and treasonist traitors working at Trump’s psychopathic demand to destroy our federal government!!!!! The first group has a constitutional right to peaceably protest, with a few basic boundaries and controls. [What violent infiltrators did in some instances was a different matter, punishable by law.] The second group broke laws and committed violence with obvious intent. They did the worst thing(s) any citizen(s) of this country can. I remind you that the punishment for treason used to be public hanging. Perhaps it still should be for such absolutely unconscionable acts.
“I remind you that the punishment for treason used to be public hanging. Perhaps it still should be for such absolutely unconscionable acts.”
Really? That sounds EXACTLY like the language of the fringe “insurrectionists, seditionists and treasonist traitors” you seem to think are so common in America, talking about Democrats. Which also sounds a lot like “no one voted for Trump but misogynists, bigots and racists,” or “Democrats want to take our guns and put us in concentration camps.”
Maybe we can make a made-for-TV special of it? CNN can treat it like they handle the debates, all glitz and glamour. My gosh, the ratings! What a windfall! It will certainly improve their numbers after they cashed when Trump was sent packing.
I can’t believe you just equated “BLM, and those protesting pipelines, or protesting any corporation or concentration of wealth, or working conditions, or animal mistreatment” groups with the ethno-fascists who are in fact attempting to pass legislation in state after state which targets non-white voters with precision.
And no, I did not agree that the media “runs cover” on the problem of our plutocracy: The “but yeah, the media ignores that problem” was sarcastic, which should’ve been obvious.
I certainly don’t think Democrats have been great about reining in our new Gilded Age, but for Pete’s sake, has a Republican done a single solitary thing about the problem in the last 40 years?
And any time there’s a complaint on this site about Republicans, *you* chime in to complain about how Democrats are just as bad. That’s why I tell you to give it a rest.
And I have no idea how you go from an article about blocking a congressional hearing to suggesting that we’re talking about giving “extra-ordinary powers to law enforcement”.
You’re clearly arguing in bad faith, and it’s pointless.
I didn’t equate ethno-fascists with BLM etc, I said if you are going to empower law enforcement with a new War on Terror in America, then law enforcement is going to go after anyone who questions the power structure in America, left and right, and that is what that congressional hearing would ultimately be about.
As for my supposed defense of Republicans, I think I’m plenty clear about the racism and worship of wealth on that end of the spectrum. Mostly what I am doing here is punching holes in the Democratic Party sense of moral and ethical superiority.
“Were the Capital police told to stand down?”
Well, no: If 500 cops were told to stand down I think that would be a little hard to keep it a secret.
“Were they deliberately left on their own?”
Yes, we know this to be true in regard to the deployment of National Guard standing by in reserve.
“Were they incited by people from the government other then Trump or the Right?”
Now that is a neat mind control trick that needs further explanation. The QANON Chamin is actually a deep state plant?
“Was this a gambit not just to get Trump out of office, but to turn America into more of a police State plutocracy than it is?”
All, and more sounds like a reason for an independent, non partisan/representative investigation of all these things.
And, welcome back from vacation WHD…
“All, and more sounds like a reason for an independent, non partisan/representative investigation of all these things.
“And, welcome back from vacation WHD…”
Like the Warren Commission or the 9/11 Commission, or the Wuhan Commission (to be run by the same guy who ran the 9/11 Commission)? Forgive me if I have little faith, and expect agenda more than any search for truth.
And thank you Edward. Though it was less a vacation and more a protest about the leftward embrace of censorship.
QANON Chamin? I think you mean QAnon Shaman.
Good grief, you’re back beating the same tiresome drum. Might want to look for some nuance in your view of the world. A commission looking into how we came to January 6 is not going to lead to another War on Terror that defends the plutocracy. We had a mob, directed by Trump and his cohorts, that was trying to overturn a national election and threatening members of Congress. There are all sorts of questions that need to be examined and answered, several of which you asked. It’s a lot more complicated than “A pox on all their houses,” if you’re actually trying to make a society function.
“Good grief, you’re back beating the same tiresome drum.”
I know it is all so very tiresome that I don’t contribute to the degraded dialogue that demonizes the “other” from the standpoint of the “good people on the right side of history”, more or less just like most everybody here, while the few who rule over all of us get a free pass and media/state propaganda is ignored or worse genuflected before.
From the moment the “insurrection” happened it was called “terrorism” by major media and democratic politicians. Legally “terrorism” is a distinct word with a long history used for about ten trillion dollars worth of reasons. That is also why Republicans like to call anyone protesting animal cruelty, or pipelines, or protesting generally, a “terrorist”, so as to legislate a means to round them up, and spend and make a lot of money doing so. Anytime a politician or a million dollar media personality starts talking about “terrorism”, any American seriously calling themselves such should be exceedingly wary.
Trump is the biggest bully and name caller of them all. Before he rode that escalator down to announce his run for president (as a lifetime criminal, shoddy builder, perpetual lawsuit seeker and woman abuser)….and every single day since…whenever he opens his mouth. He is a perennial rager who manipulates everyone he can reach. It is who he is. This is the ‘god’ you pledge fealty to.
“This is the ‘god’ you pledge fealty to.”
It is quite remarkable that Trump is no longer president but I hear his name invoked more by Democrats than Biden. It think based on your comment you are treating our former president more like a god than anything I have said could even suggest I care in the least for Trump.
According to the Mpls Star Tribune, Amy Klobuchar’s senate report released today does not label attackers as insurrectionists or describe the events of Jan. 6 as an insurrection.
Senate testimony from the former chief of the Capitol Hill police appears to confirm reports that leftist Antifa terrorists helped incite violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. Steven Sund, who quit his job as police chief the day after the melee, told a joint hearing of the Rules and Homeland Security committees that “we knew” Antifa goons would be there. Sund cited intelligence reports from federal agencies.
Other indications that Antifa and BLM were involved in the violence was the arrest of John Sullivan, who is linked to both groups. Photos and video of Sullivan wearing Trump gear and holding a cellphone inside the Capital are all over the internet. Police arrested him inside the Capitol that day. CNN and NBC paid him $35,000 for his cellphone video of the events.
One person does not a mob make.
And ‘knowing’ that a member of a group will be there is not the same as that individual actually being present and acting violently.
So claims FOX, Newsmax, OAN, Sinclair and all of the other rapidly expanding planned, purposeful propaganda sites who all file under ‘entertainment’ so they can say whatever they wish. Whereas true ‘journalists’ pledge to report the facts fairly and objectively, the better to ‘inform’ the reading masses. Not indoctrinate them:(
“Senate testimony from the former chief of the Capitol Hill police appears to confirm reports that leftist Antifa terrorists helped incite violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.”
Wow. That’s easier to disprove than the usual fantastical nonsense you post here.
According to Newsweek: “Sund testified that a report from the Intelligence and Inter-Agency Coordination Division provided before January 6 listed Antifa as expected participants in the rally taking place that day, meaning the intelligence community expected members to be present in Washington, D.C.
The report predicted Antifa and other groups could become violent, similar to November 2020’s Million MAGA March in Washington, D.C., but officials did not anticipate an attack on the Capitol.”
As far as John Sullivan goes, he has denied involvement with antifa. He attended some BLM meetings, but was kicked out when it was realized that he was a right-wing, um, activist.
I was mostly referring to CIA/Intelligence operatives, fomenting rebellion. The CIA being no friend of Trump, nor the FBI, and that being what they do, and excel at. Mr Sullivan seems more like he doesn’t fit in anywhere, just along for the ride trying to feel like he’s part of something, and maybe a bit mentally ill.
Phantasy?
And since antifa is a category label, not an organization, it has no membership lists to check. So how would one verify that a given individual is certifiably ‘antifa’? After all, most of us would claim to be antifascists; even those whose actions are fascistic?
I don’t know about you, but to me, the fact that “Antifa” doesn’t even exist makes it alot more frightening!
Here’s what Moscow Mitch had to say about the events on Jan 6. ” a failed insurrection”, so there’s that, a Republican leader calling it what it was, a traitorous insurrection fueled by stupidity so profound it boggles the mind – read about the nearly 500 arrested so far, brainiacs they are not.
Your claim that Antifa was present that day seems unlikely, since they don’t care for the Proud Boys, or the other white supremacist groups gathered to support the failed former pres, I would think those groups would have been fighting each other that day had Antifa actually been there, but they weren’t.
John Sullivan is a right-wing provocateur who aims at his self-styled celebrity by merging himself into left protests and stirring things up. This is well documented.
I would add, hypocrisy being what it is, were Democrats a loyal opposition to Bush the Lesser, or Trump? Hardly. That would be the Black calling the Kettle black, so to speak.
I was told a few years ago it’s patriotic to “resist, resist, resist.” Can’t imagine what’s changed.
Strange, I seem to recall “resist” and “rebel” as having two entirely different meanings. Kinda like “loyal” and “traitorous”.
Well, actually, this country was made by rebels, not resistors. And our Federal Government is not unlike King George, what with wage earners getting taxed like mad but corporations, banks and billionaires not so much, but getting most of the gains, and making’ the rules. Just sayin’
Actual, no, our country was “made” by dead politicians with a lesser understanding of the world than your average modern 10 year old. Why anyone reveres them is beyond me.
To say that Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Jay, Hamilton, Madison, Burr etc had a lesser understanding than the average modern 10 year old, then that must make you wiser than Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Confucius and Lao Tzu.
There’s a difference between ‘wiser’ and ‘more knowledgeable’.
To say today’s 10 year olds are more knowledgeable than the founders of America is neither knowledgeable nor wise. That is both setting up 10year olds for a lack of discernment, and grossly inflates the discernment, knowledge and wisdom of the average adult in America and this commentariat.
Nor capacitors.
Of course, the real issue was one of political representation (look up ‘taxation without representation…)
Yes, I would argue, wage earning, working class people, have been taxed heavily for 40 years without representation.
The difference is that British citizens living in the home country had parliamentary representation; those in the colonies did not.
Resist evil and fascism: yes. Resist lies manipulation: no. Expose them!
It works too if you go:
“What’s changed is that one party has completely dismissed reality and has embraced lies, conspiracy and Critical Race Theory as a core tenet of their ideology.”
At least it works if you’re more interested in invective and what high school debaters call ‘squirrel killers’ rather than demonstrable facts.
The solution to one toxic ideology making zealots (White Nationalism) is not another toxic ideology making zealots (Critical Race Theory).
What is “toxic” about critical race theory? Other than not following the exact agenda you believe should be followed.
First, the notion that everything about America and Western Civilization has to be viewed strictly and primarily through a race lens, which pretty much eliminates any talk of the strggles against monarchy and aristocracy, the Church and the rich.
Two, saying America was birthed for no other reason than white supremacy pretty much ignores the struggle of women generally, those seeking religious freedom, those seeking sexual freedom, the working poor seeking rights.
Three, it being a postmodern theory, saying nothing can be truly known – yet somehow it’s adherents acting like it is incontrovertible truth and if you aren’t doctrinaire about it you are a racist.
Four, the way it is used as a coercive cudgel, increasingly in Institutions everywhere, to clear the ranks of all those not sufficiently ideological.
Five, the way corporations have embraced it, which should give any human pause.
Six, the way it enthusiastically “cancels” anything not acceptable, so much like what is worst about fundamentalist Christianity and Islam.
Your first two points raise good points, although I believe “the struggle of women generally, those seeking religious freedom, those seeking sexual freedom, the working poor seeking rights,” while important to understanding American history, are not central to the narrative in the same way as race has been.
Most of your other objections seem to be the way you perceive CRT has been presented, or characterized by (gasp!) the corporate media. I also think that you have oversimplified the definition of “postmodernism.”
“Five, the way corporations have embraced it, which should give any human pause.”
I suppose most academic publishers are structured as corporations, and it’s a stretch, but publishing articles and books could be regarded as “embracing” the theory. I don’t know of any other types of business corporations that could be said to have embraced CRT, except, arguable, the New York Times for publishing the 1619 Project.
Do you regard corporate efforts at racial diversity to be CRT? Corporations may be inherently evil (although I think they are neither good nor evil), but even so, should their efforts at mitigating some of their evil be regarded with suspicion? It may be opportunistic, but so what? If it helps a problem in a small way, it is unfair to dismiss it because it doesn’t solve every problem in the world in one fell swoop.
“Six, the way it enthusiastically ‘cancels’ anything not acceptable, so much like what is worst about fundamentalist Christianity and Islam.”
You mean, the adherents of CRT think they and their fellow adherents have the monopoly on truth, everyone else is equally wrong or deluded, and if you don’t agree with everything they say you’re wrong?
Gosh, I can’t abide people who think like that.
A writer I am fond of said, we are permitted to talk about differences that are based in biology, but we are not permitted to have a conversation about class.
That is why we can discuss race and gender, but not the fact that if you break down economics by race, 1% of whites own 75% of white wealth, 1% of blacks own 75% of black wealth, so on and so forth. That and so we can have equity in the sense that 60% of the salary class is white, 21% Latinx, 13% black, 4% asian, 1.5% Indigenous, but thirty percent of all races can be dirt poor with no opportunity.
So that is what I think CRT is about too. Just another way to distract from the fact that more and more Americans of all races are falling into poverty.
Actually, to say I got it from Newsmax is the dog whistle. My assessment of postmodern Critcal Race Theory is based on my own research, and observations of those who treat it like if you don’t agree with it and me then you are obviously a racist, many of whom don’t actually know what CRT is other than a virtue signal.
Oh please. The propagandists of the Right introduced “Critical Race Theory” into the discourse when “Cultural Marxism” began to lose steam in scaring the bejeebers out of the terrified Republican base. The propagandists are well paid to scan academia to come up with ominous-sounding terms to use in manipulating the base. CRT is a fairly anodyne academic concept that doesn’t have the slightest bearing on anything that happens in the day-to-day world or that is taught in K-12 classrooms across the land.
CRT is the basis of the 1619 Project, which is taught in many schools. CRT is also the basis of many an Institutional training/indoctrination at the corporate and government level. It is quite effectively weaponized, nothing anodyne about it. But I would agree there is increasingly blowback about it, not just from the right, people tired of the coercive nature of it’s interpretation by many, and it’s fundamental dishonesty about nature and history.
So we shouldn’t talk about racism, or try to educate people against it?
Of course we should. Just don’t weaponize it like some virtue signal club to beat people down with.
If you find some equivalency between the events of January 6 and some past D reaction to political adversity please tell us more.
If you find some equivalency between Trump’s reaction to his lopsided loss and how Gore handled his actually disputable loss in 2000, also tell us more. To remind us all of what a losing candidate does, I offer:
“Good evening.
Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States. And I promised him that I wouldn’t call him back this time. I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we’ve just passed.
….
In the words of our great hymn, “America, America”: “Let us crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea.”
And now, my friends, in a phrase I once addressed to others: it’s time for me to go.
Thank you, and good night, and God bless America.”
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/algore2000concessionspeech.html
Was this before or after Gore went to the supreme court?
Gore had a legitimate case, lost, and then accepted defeat and moved on. Trump’s election challenges were frivolous nonsense. Just an absolute joke. He lost over and over and is still lying about it.
After. He accepted the results of an unfavorable (and speciously reasoned) court decision. He did not incite his followers to storm the Capitol, nor did he insist, against all evidence, that he was going to be installed as the legitimate President.
Yes, there are and were real concerns about the victory of Bush in 2000, but Vice President Gore accepted that he lost the election and moved on. He did not continue to grift legions of gullible people in supporting his triumphant return to power.
Well, Gore made a mint after, so he’s fine. In the general progression of things, Republicans then went Bat**** crazy about Obama, hardly even able to hide their more racist tendencies (even though I can’t stand that fraud for different elitist neoliberal banker protecting drone bombing wedding party blowback reasons), while the Democrat response to Trump was like one long agonizing tedious deranged 4-year “insurrection”, while many a Republican are currently tilting into maybe an even deeper kind of madness. And surely, should Trump be elected again, or some Trump-like character, I fully expect Dems to spiral… ever… further… down…
Been my observation over many years that people who use the word “Democrat” as an adjective either know it’s wrong and they are trying to be disrespectful and not seriously engaged in debate, or just ignorant people.
“Even though I can’t stand that fraud [Obama] for different elitist neoliberal, [etc. etc.] bombing wedding party reasons.”
But no, WHD, you “don’t say anywhere, Dems do it worse”! (see below for quote) The only villains in your piece, WHD, are (both) Clintons and Obama. Trump, Bush, Cheney hardly ever receive a mention, simply because they (and Repubs in general) don’t really bother you more than the above Dems. Add in the fact that your supposed chief concern (the environment) hasn’t a single Repub proponent in 2021 and the whole performance becomes a bit strange.
As for your concern that Dems opposed poor Donald Trump from day one of his “election”, at some point maybe you (and the “conservatives” here) will begin to understand that immediate political opposition is the natural wage of running a presidential campaign that wins (only) the electoral college, and thus receives no popular mandate whatever for one’s “agenda”. And also note that this is quite unlike the immediate opposition that McConnell’s conservatives announce whenever a newly elected Dem president attains office via the popular vote, and (so far) in the 21st Century, a national majority. They oppose majoritarian, popular democracy as a matter of principle.
Pretty sure none of them fomented a violent insurrection, but sure. I hope you didn’t get a raise, the material is stale.
Every time I comment on Minnpost you accuse me of being a paid troll. I have been trying to figure out, who would pay me to criticize corporate, bank, billionaire and government abuse of power, while defending wage earners, people without a college degree, water, soil, plants, animals and pollinators? Because I really should be getting paid to come here and get maligned like I do.
It seems pretty clear to me that you are wholeheartedly behind the billionaires and corporate interests and against working people and the environment.
That is the most amazing thing about free speech. I get to come on here and tear down corporations, banks, billionaires and a complicit government and media, in a thousand different ways, while ever defending working wage earning people and the health of the earth. And you get to come here and say I am a servant of corporations and billionaires working against the health of the earth, like your one comment makes it so.
Which is free speech, but not at all civil discourse.
Well, actually, I would say that Mr. Terry’s statement has merit. You tear down corporations, banks, billionaires and a complicit government and media, and then you fight tenaciously against anyone who suggests that anything be done to change this. You’ve been invited many times to offer a political strategy to move toward a fair, decent and ecologically sustainable society, and your response is always the same: two equally corrupt parties representing the interests of the corporations, banks and billionaires, in stasis, period. On several occasions I’ve suggested to you directly that while the balance of power in the Democratic party remains with the corrupt corporatists at this time, nevertheless the only and obvious possible route to change, given that the Republican party is irrevocably committed to lawless autocracy, is to vote for Democrats while working outside and within that party toward a different society. Each time you’ve deflected and simply stated that all are corrupt and there’s nothing to be done. So virtually every comment you’ve made on these pages is a call to passivity and therefore an exhortation to just accept, if complainingly, the way things are. In the words of Margaret Thatcher, “There is No Alternative.”
Charles,
The first step to doing something about the Democratic party is accepting how corrupt it has become.
As for what to do about it, I have been quite clear. One, accept how the economics of the last 40 years has been so devastating for anyone of any race who does not have a college degree, and quit supporting policies that make it worse for them, and increasingly make many people with college degrees effectively destitute. Second, quit pretending like fixing race relations is even possible without offering more economic opportuntiy to more people if all races including working class white people. Third, actually hold Dem politicians accountable and quit blaming republicans for every little thing.
That’s a start. I’ve said a lot more than that, repeatedly.
William –
A political strategy is a plan for how we should undertake to navigate governmental and others centers of power, through the entire range of formal and informal modes of civic activity, to shift power from the few to the many, and move the nation from its current place to the one we’d like to see. Nothing in your reply is a political strategy. I’ve seen a multitude of your comments, and not a one has offered any element of a political strategy.
As one example, you’ve said or implied often that it is appropriate to vote for a Republican, or at least withhold a vote from a Democrat competing against a Republican. As another example, you’ve asserted that those who vote for Democrats should spend more time renouncing Democrats. With what plausible political strategy is either of these consistent?
One of the many qualitative differences between the Republican and Democratic party constellations is that while the Republican base is self-selected from those willing to believe and regurgitate whatever they’re told, most of those who vote Democratic do so pragmatically, recognizing the corruption and deep faults of the Democratic establishment but recognizing also that keeping power from the Republican party wherever possible is a necessary element of any political strategy to save, let alone better, the nation. Though some commenters on this site engage in the kneejerk defense of Democrats from time to time, or deflect criticisms of Democrats with whataboutism, I’ve seen no evidence that any support the Democratic party cultishly rather than pragmatically. The criticism you voice over and over about how money and power are used aren’t, I suspect, very controversial among those who comment on this website from the Democratic “side.” The question is when it is productive to deploy such criticisms, and that’s, again, the question of what the political strategy is. I may look slovenly with my shirt hanging out, but if the guy at my front door has just got his chainsaw thru it, pausing to tuck in my shirt might not be the appropriate next step in my strategy to have myself a nice quiet evening.
Look, there’s this cat, what I need for you to do is go put this bell on that cat…
Bingo.
Yes. And your comments on this thread reinforce my belief that you are an advocate for corporations and moneyed interests.
As a lawyer, I know you know that in the court of public opinion, emotion is the thing, not evidence, facts, logic or reason. And if you repeat a phrase or accusation again and again, people will come to believe it; there doesn’t have to be any truth to it at all.
That said, it doesn’t matter to me if anyone believes you. I stand by my word. I have faith in the reader.
Actually, my training and experience as a lawyer has made me focus on facts and evidence. Things that are sorely lacking in the arguments you have made on this thread.
Several cities in the country have been under a ‘violent insurrection’ over the past year. Why doesn’t anybody bring that up?
More deflection? Didn’t see that one coming.
How many of those “insurrections” constitute an attack on the Capitol instigated by an outgoing President and meant to disrupt a constitutional function?
Maybe we could all agree that the storming of the capital and $500million (and counting) of damage (of a lot of small businesses including minority owned) in Minneapolis, is outrageous?
This is one of the most humorous articles I have ever read in my entire life!
Is this article supposed to be sarcasm?
For over 4 years the “Loyal opposition” has called Trump every name in the book (some true). It seems MinnPost has been the leader of the “resist movement” from the day of the decent down the escalator.
He has been called a Nazi – fascist – mass murderer, just to name a few. Of course – these names are lies, but they are allowed to appear weekly on the pages of “real journalism.” I guess calling Trump a Nazi, based on no evidence, is part of being the loyal opposition.
We have heard daily for many years Russia, Russia, Russia – which was a bunch of lies!
We could go on and on and mention Trumps lies but the lies and other politicians of the writer’s party are ignored. Just like the late night comics (they got the memo) ignore the feeble and fumbling sleepy Joe, Mr. black ignores democrat lies as well. These lies are numerous.
If you are really concerned about lies –and you ought to be – you will be concerned about all lies, not just the ones that fit “the narrative.”
Mr. Black knows nothing about “loyal opposition.” He is an expert on “blind loyalty” to a mostly false narrative that satisfies the MinnPost donor base and has them searching their thesaurus for best name calling response. That is what the “blind opposition” does
Feel better? Of course each and every one of YOUR points are exactly as you describe, from the other direction, but if spouting partisan hokum keeps you from violence against your neighbors, keep on keeping on.
The only lie is in calling Trump a Nazi. He doesn’t have that kind of attention span.
Actually, the biggest lie here is the idea that Russia wasn’t heavily involved in electing Trump. Even the Senate Republicans reached that obvious conclusion about Russian involvement. The lie is calling it a lie.
Again, this is what we should expect from a lifelong failure like Trump. An illiterate trust fund kid who squandered his father’s fortune running business after business into the ground, and then did the same with our country.
Well, I know much of what you say is true, Ron. I also knew as soon as I read it, the commentariat Junta here would shout you down.
William Binney, one of the best minds the NSA has ever had, proved that Russiagate was a hoax. Russiagate and the recent election fraud theory appeal to the bases of both political parties and attempt to keep attention away from the economic problems that have severely affected average Americans for the past four decades.
Wow. The idea that future historians are going to read the Mueller Report and the 4 reports of the senate Intelligence Committee (as well as the rest of the voluminous materials available) and conclude the official record demonstrates that “Russiagate was a hoax” is rather fantastical, whatever this brilliant William Binney might have “proved” to your satisfaction.
It’s curious his apparently blockbuster views are rather, um, obscure. But your second sentence nicely covers that!
William Binney has said that his conclusion that the Russians did not hack into the DNC servers was based on misinformation and that he believes there is on proof of the physical location of the person(s) who did the hacking.
Mr. Binney also concluded, based on a bad reading of data, that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election. He is also filling his days by appearing at fora sponsored by the Lyndon LaRouche PAC.
If that’s what “one of the best minds the NSA has ever had” gets up to, Lord help us.
Wow, I had no idea Binney was in with the LaRouche crowd. He’s even more out there than I imagined. His election fraud claim was hilarious. Cuckoo for Coco Puffs.
The evidence of Russian involvement in the 2016 election is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Even the Republicans on the Senate committee investigating it had to agree. So the idea that a guy who has been out of the government for 20 years has proved otherwise is laughable nonsense. To believe that is a complete rejection of actual facts.
Of course, Binney isn’t a respected guy – he’s a fraud and a conspiracy theorist. He’s a liar and a grifter sho preys on gullible people not interested in facts. He’s like Glenn Greenwald, a compulsive liar who pretends to be into transparency, but is really just a fascist. That’s kind of the direction Thomas Frank went too.
An assertion is not proof.
To quote from Wikipedia:
“An investigation by Duncan Campbell later detailed how Binney had been persuaded by a pro-Kremlin disinformant that the theft of the DNC emails was an inside job, and not the work of Russian agents (contrary to the findings of the US intelligence community).[26] The disinformation agent altered metadata in the files released by Guccifer 2.0 (whom the US intelligence community identifies as a Russian military intelligence operation) to make it appear as if the documents came from a computer in the Eastern United States, not Russia. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_official)
As I understand it, the governing rule of our democracy now is that in order to pass legislation must have the approval of those who oppose it. I just don’t see how that can work going forward.
The above comments, folks, are an encapsulation of what is happening now in America. A majority, largely in the blue states but not solely, are fighting to keep our democracy & principles & rights & protections for all. A minority is pressing hard for a serious regression back to the days before the Civil Rights Movement. Their lives feel disenfranchised. They no longer feel powerful or superior. They know changing demographics will makes middle to older white men the minority within 10 years. But instead of transitioning gracefully they have decided to fight tooth & nail against this logical progression. Call it the Old White Men’s Last Stand built out of impotence, ignorance and frustration. There is another way to handle it: I read, when pg w my now adult aged son, that he wb a white male minority by age 48 due to changing demographics. This was challenging to wrap my head around in the early 80s but I have always encouraged him to be a global citizen. He has traveled the world both professionally and personally all of his life. He is comfortable anywhere, with any people. He embraces the many cultures, skin tones, beliefs, foods, music. The transition will be far more seamless for him and males like him. I’ve also always stressed to him that one always has options, in every area. Choices. We may not like them all, but we have them. Right here, right now: we can work together and be accepting and conclusive. Or a subset of us can continue to push to scorch the earth. Choose very, very wisely…because there are also always ramifications for our actions. And I pray the grand jury indicts Trump shortly; he so richly deserves it after a lifetime of criminal behaviours. RICO!
I recommend, particularly to Mr. Duncan, Heather Cox Richardson’s “How the South Won the Civil War.” I’m generally in agreement with his frequent criticism of the corporate plutocracy that has overtaken us, but sheer wealth and greed don’t tell the whole story. Simple, uncomplicated racial prejudice/animus accounts for a sizable segment of our current distress as a society. It’s been with us for more than three centuries, and has only begun to very grudgingly recede in the past half-century. I don’t expect to see it end any time soon. We’re tribal creatures, and some among us enjoy fanning those tribal flames of distrust of “the other,” no matter who “the other” happens to be in a particular case.
According to my Webster’s Dictionary, fascism “tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.” To my eyes and ears, that’s a fair description of far too much of the Republican Party, and far too many Republicans. Applied to individuals, Mr. Gotzman, a fascist is someone “authoritarian,” “very intolerant,” and/or “domineering.” Offhand, that seems a fair description of Mr. Trump – as well as several of his associates.
Does any of this confer sainthood on Democrats? Not in the slightest. Plutocracy is an equal opportunity corrupter, and when nearly half (perhaps more than half) of our Congressional representatives are themselves millionaires, I’m always surprised that ANYONE in Washington actually seems to have the interests of the vast majority of Americans at heart. I’m of the belief that even ethically-compromised Democrats are nonetheless far less wedded to the notion of the moral and ethical superiority of wealth, not to mention the equally-curious concept of white supremacy, than are their Republican companions. The irony, if you know your history, is that a century-and-a-half ago, it would have been the reverse. That’s one of the reasons I found “How the South Won the Civil War” an interesting read.
“I’m of the belief that even ethically-compromised Democrats are nonetheless far less wedded to the notion of the moral and ethical superiority of wealth, than their Republican companions.”
That book sounds like an interesting read. Reading some reviews I am inclined not to disagree with the basic premise, other than oligarchy in America is not just a southern creation. Nor do I necessarily disagree with this quote of yours, except to say that rather than wealth, the Dems you speak of have a notion of the moral and ethical superiority of themselves.
Some people on this site have cited Thomas Frank’s book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas,” when describing the problems within the modern GOP, but I’ve never seen anybody mention Frank’s “Listen, Liberal,” which describes the problems within the modern Democratic Party. If people were to read both, they would realize why a very large majority of Americans have no effective representation in the government.
Which is why he has been exiled from corporate media including NPR.
He was “exiled” because the book was dishonest nonsense.
He was exiled because liberal Democrats have zero tolerance for any talk about how the policies they have supported have been devastating to people without a college degree and wage earners generally.
I didn’t think too much of his first book and didn’t read the second. Could it not be that the argument of the first book was coherent and valid, while that of the sequel was strained and contrived?
I read both books. The first one was ok, but overrated. But Frank really jumped the shark with the second one. Just riddled with outright falsehoods and general ignorant nonsense. It didn’t get much play because it was a joke. The equivalent of a Pillow Guy speech.
Reviews were about the same for both books, but people commenting here only cited the one critical of the GOP. Of course, it is “ignorant nonsense” when it exposes the corruption in neoliberalism.
Frank didn’t expose anyone other than himself as a crackpot and a liar. Its kind of like the Lyndon LaRouche disciple Binney proving that Russia was a hoax. Binney went one better in 2020 and proved that Trump really won the election, which even got Trump’s attention. Turns out Binney’s proof was based on a complete lack of understanding of, well, everything about the election.
These guys are clowns, conspiracy theorists, fundamentally dishonest people with no interest in facts or truth. We should be able to just laugh at people like this, but sadly there are people who actually take them seriously.
“If people were to read both, they would realize why a very large majority of Americans have no effective representation in the government.”
Very true. Apparently, the others who read Thomas Frank’s books haven’t read the same books you and I read. I would add “The People, No!” and “Pity the Billionaire” to Frank’s worthwhile critiques of the late, great Democratic Party. Without examples, I don’t know how anyone can accuse Frank or his books of being “dishonest”, a “joke”or full of “falsehoods” and “nonsense”. They are all well footnoted and documented. They provide a very coherent explanation for the continuing decline of Democratic support among working Americans and why the Democratic Party’s hold on power has become tenuous when it exists at all. And Frank has to me worthwhile suggestions for turning things around. For people who think Clinton and Obama were terrific Presidents who did never pandered to the wealthy and powerful I can see why Frank’s criticisms might come across as harsh or unfair. It’s not possible to be part of any “loyal opposition”in the USA. You must be all in for the party or you’re not in at all.
False equivalence.
If you have read Frank’s books to realize that most people are not represented in our government… you must be living in a cave somewhere. If I were you I’d just read Peter Callaghan’s latest article here on Minnpost explaining why popular legislation cannot get passed here in MN.
https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2021/06/why-some-seemingly-popular-issues-never-come-up-for-a-vote-at-the-minnesota-legislature/
Lots of comments going off on all sorts of tangential points. Bush, not Gore, was the one who asked the US Supreme Court to stay the order of the FL Supreme Court regarding the recount of all FL counties, using an unprecedented equal protection argument. And the idea that the main instigators/participants of the Jan 6 Insurrection were “really” BLM and/or “antifa” activists is an insult to one’s intelligence, or should be. Further, if this is what one believes, then surely an independent commission should have been the vehicle to investigate these suspicions, no?
As to the actual point of Eric’s piece, there seems to be some confusion as to what “loyal opposition” means. It does not mean opposition to the policies of the winners of a democratic election, that’s surely permitted (although 21st Century Repubs have thrown out historic norms here, too). What is means is loyalty to a democratic system, and it is now painfully obvious that the rightwing plutocrats that fund the “conservative” movement and its wholly-owned Repub party have elected to do all they can to suppress and oppose majoritarian rule and free and fair elections. They had to do this, because it is now obvious that the current tenets of “conservatism” cannot ever command a national majority, and thus state election laws have to be altered to better advantage “conservative” candidates.
To a large extent what is happening is that the glaring weaknesses of the 1789 Constitution as erecting a democratic “system” for a modern nation are becoming more and more intolerable. It simply has too many anti-democratic features, and when a major party determines that those features must be played up, not played down, then the Constitution is brought into disrespect and disrepute. That is what is happening now, and there is no possible solution to the problem, given the current make-up of the Repub party and its minoritarian base. We will either have rule by a minority faction, or paralysis. Those are now the options under the 1789 constitution, unless the Repub party is politically destroyed.
The entire history of the 21st Century is one of Repubs attaining power via anti-democratic means (the stolen election of 2000, the Trump election of 2016) or absolute blind opposition to Dem presidents who attained power via assent of a national majority (Obama 2008, 2012 and now Biden, 2020). And now the Repub “answer” is vote suppression. Such political opponents cannot legitimately be called a “loyal opposition” in a modern democratic state. The last remaining question is which side the American “independents” will take. One is now either for majoritarian democracy, or against it. This was the natural end point to which American “conservatism” was fated to take us.
It is mostly pseudo-conservatism you are refering to, conservative values hijacked by imperial pursuits and the neoliberal economics of the Chicago School and Milton Friedman, summed up by Margaret Thatcher with her phrase “There Is No Alternative” (TINA).
The Democratic Party was late to that party, but Clinton embraced it, took it to a whole new level, and now it is the Democrats who are carrying on the economics of Reagan, while the Republican Party is (potentially) transforming into the Trumpist repubiation of globalist trade, tacit acceptance of illegal immigration and eternal wars of opportunity.
Neither party is defending democracy at this point. While Republicans try to game the elections by preventing people from voting, Dems embrace censorship by way of big tech and dubious electronic voting that leave elections open to question. With every passing election the loser party becomes ever less loyal to the system.
All this raging against Republicans is in the language psychology, Dems denying what they fearin themselves, aka projection.
Ah WHD, I’ve missed your “Both Sides Do It, But Dems Do It Worse” take these several months.
Your first sentence implies there is some serious fissure in “conservatism” which I simply don’t see, whatever “pseudo-conservatism” is trying to express (and please spare me, as I don’t care.)
If you can look at the Covid relief bills that Congressional Dems authored and ushered through congress in the past year (spending over $4.5 trillion with more proposed, as well as proposed tax increases on plutocrats) and see the economic policies of Reaganite conservatism (tax cuts, deregulation and dismantlement of government) then your glasses need some serious adjustment. (I suppose one could say they both involved deficit spending, but the means and goals of the two are quite dissimilar.) And whatever would you do as a thinker without Bill Clinton? The idea that today’s Dem party is the party of Clintonism is merely a rhetorical affectation on your part.
Finally, and no offense intended, your third and last paragraphs are simple “Both Sides Do It” gibberish that don’t merit a response.
I don’t say anywhere, Dems do it worse. I critique Dem thinking because this site is full of liberal Democrats who are convinced the party is the Good to Republican Evil.
As for the relief bills, whatever was given to the rabble is as nothing compared to what has been given to elite, much like Great Recession QE, this pandemic, in the progression of things, being the greatest transfer of wealth up the social pyramid in the history of the world. So I wouldn’t be congratulating yourself just yet.
Remember how in the pandemic, there was all that talk about bringing back America’s productive capacity? That talk has evaporated. Biden and Dems seem to be acting like what they have done is enough. But there is an economic reckoning coming soon, and if Dems don’t get on it, Biden is going to be the lamest duck ever, 2022.
We are the good, when the other party openly elected an ignorant racist, which then allowed their ignorance and racism to flourish. In the years before the ignorant racist became pres I used to joke (tongue in cheek) that Republicans were all a bunch of racists, but now I believe that sentiment to be true. And not casual racism, but given the option, I think that the majority of Republicans would don a white hood and head to the closest lynching. So, yeah, we’re better.
“We are the good…”
Returning full circle to Eric Black’s original point, that the GOP is responsible for the destruction of the idea of the loyal opposition. That is where I differ from Eric and most here. I see Dems and Repubs like energies locked in magnetism, necessary to each other and equally destructive to empire America.
I’m a little to the game here but I’ll make a few short observations.
First, it’s not at all that difficult to define the nature of “loyal opposition” outside the context of parliamentary systems. It’s the same principle in any liberal democracy. The idea is that everyone who works for the people at an elected representative is supposed to be “loyal” to the nation, citizens, and constitution, even though they may not agree with their fellow representatives. This is a basic meta-narrative that’s quite easy to understand.
The problem that arises with the emergence of Fascists or others with dictatorial impulses is that they are NOT loyal to the nation, it’s people, or it’s constitution. They attack these institutions and therefore cannot be considered “loyal”. Their opposition is destructive and hostile, they seek to overthrow not defend or even work a democratic government. This is why attacking the Capital and seeking to stay in power regardless of the election outcome cannot be described as acts of loyalty to the nation, hence this is disloyal opposition.
Finally, these ongoing and facile expressions of mourning the loss of the past bipartisan regime is getting tedious don’t some of you agree? That bipartisan regime of “cooperation”, “compromise”, and civility was in reality a giant incubator of social, political, and economic crises that inflicted untold harm and misery upon millions of Americans and others around the world for decades. The regime that ushered in the catastrophe of 2016 was in many ways MORE disfunctional than the scenario we have today because it papered over multiple crises in order to service an elite and their wannabe bourgeoisie elitists sitting in contrived comfort zones. The idea that we had “functioning” governance until Trump got elected is an abject expression of denial and obtuse nostalgia.
I don’t know how long the privileged of the past can continue to cling to their illusions of competency and comfort, but it’s getting old. This impulse to deny the failures of “centrism”, “moderation”, and bipartisan incompetence while pining for a return that era of failure is just plain silly. Republican stopped being any kind of “loyal” opposition decades ago, the problem is that the other political party in the country clung to their illusions while Fascism rose on the other side of the isle.
Leftists are loyal to the Constitution? That’s a good one. There are hundreds of articles by Mr Black alone lamenting the limiting nature of the Constitution to your leftist agenda. And there are hundreds of examples of leftists destroying government property during “mostly peaceful” protests just in the last year. So I’d put the loyalty to the nation in question as well. So can spare me the righteous indignation. We have plenty of problems in this country, and they don’t all come from Republicans.
“Leftists” have NEVER attacked the nations capital and tried to install a man who lost an election in the White House… that’s a fact. These references to the riots last summer and the “leftist” aggression keep ignoring the fact that not a single ANTIFA or Anarchist has been arrested, while several RIGHT WING white supremacists HAVE been arrested and charge. At any rate, if you want to compare “riots” last summer to the bombing in Oklahoma City (right wing militia in THAT case) go ahead and demolish your own credibility… I can’t stop you. If you want to compare an attempt to install a dictator in the White House to looting a cell phone store… again, I can’t stop you. If you want to compare a reaction to a man being murdered in broad daylight on the street by police officers to that of losing an election… well you get the point.
Mr. Black has indeed written about constitutional limits… limits that liberals recognize and respect despite their constraints. Again… when liberals meet constitutional limits… they go back, get organized and try to win the next election. Right wing guys grab their guns and blow stuff up. Whatever.
“We have plenty of problems in this country, and they don’t all come from Republicans.”
I actually find some hope in this statement… at least you’re recognizing the fact that Republicans ARE responsible for some of the nation’s problem.