Fox News and white grievance
Fox News and white grievance
In his recent book “Kill Switch,” Adam Jentleson, a former aide to the late Senator Harry Reid, persuasively argues that the Senate filibuster arose by accident when a rule revision in 1805 failed to include the “previous question” resolution, which would require a vote on the issue pending because it was thought superfluous. He also shows by overwhelming evidence that for the past 200 years, by far the single most common use of the filibuster was to defeat civil rights legislation benefiting Blacks.
And in the past week, it has become apparent that Senators Manchin and Sinema would join GOPers to uphold a filibuster against voting rights legislation once again.
This brings me to a couple of recent graphs posted by Kevin Drum. He is the sort of commentator I read, even though I frequently disagree with him, because his arguments are worthy of thinking through, and sometimes he finds genuine gold nuggets.
An example of the former is when he argues, as he did today, that “the progressive wing of the party [“blew it” by] insist[ing] on pushing voting rights laws that had zero chance of passing. Biden knew this from the start and said so. Then Bernie Sanders insisted on an insane BBB bill that would have been unprecedented in the history of the country,” and as a result is responsible for “Joe Biden’s disastrous approval rating and the chaotic shape of the Democratic Party.”
I am trying to think of the counterfactual situation where the progressive wing of the Democratic Party simply allowed the infrastructure bill to pass and then sat back somnolently while nothing else happened. Somehow I fail to see that Joe Biden’s approval rating would be any better. Hmmmm . . . I rather think that, whether they articulate this blame or not, the public is really pissed off at being governed by John Roberts’ reactionary 6 on the Supreme Court, with an assist by co-Presidents Manchin and Sinema, and that the attempt by progressives to get more done has not worsened this perception.
But, as an example of the latter, Drum has shown very persuasive data many times showing that the decline in the crime rate since the early 1990s correlates really well with the abatement of lead paint beginning 20 years before. Less lead poisoning in boys leads to less crime in young men 20 years later. Q.E.D. And it really does seem to be true.
Anyway, that brings me to the point of today’s post. Because recently Drum has also been arguing that the main source of the US’s turn to proto-fascism has overwhelmingly been Fox News (much moreso than even Facebook). Below are a couple of graphs he has posted over the past several months to that point.
First, commitment to democracy in the US by political party:
Second, anger or dissatisfaction with the direction of the country in the United States:
While correlation is not causation, it is certainly true that Fox News’s almost entire worldview of white grievance overlays quite well with both the collapse of commitment to democratic institutions by GOPers and anger at the direction of the country.
Some researchers have questioned the lead theory. It is clear that lead is bad. But, it is not clear about the drop in crime.
davebarnes,
People living in poverty have to put up with a lot. Judging from the recent uptick in the crime rate here in central VA, then apparently high rise slums built here twenty years ago had walls painted with lead. If not then, then now as lead is coming through the air into those walls rather than in paint. Policing helps some, but few zip codes in the US had ever taken community policing seriously enough to reap the full returns on that investment. Places that did (e.g., Charleston, S.C.) have subsequently had a change of management that erased past success. Even the best of policing can only do so much to offset the effects of concentrated poverty, but the worst of policing can do much more to increase those effects.
NDd:
I am sitting here writing my letter to Sinema questioning her logic on upholding the filibuster when it goes against everything the population needs. I will also raise questions about her support for Medicare Advantage plans. Those commercial healthcare insurance plans are pilfering the Medicare trust fund. They are not as cost efficient as Traditional Medicare.
They over code and then in the year of treatment they fail to treat patients. MA plans have been found to overbill CMS Medicare $billions.
The second issue is the filibuster and why she is intent on supporting Republicans who are working against constituents and widely supported the overthrow of the nation.
Will it matter to her? It did for Stabenow when I challenged her in public on student loans If the opportunity arises, I will do the same to Sinema.
Even here at Angry Bear, we have those who are content with what they have. Content until it ends and then the whining will start.
You are right as usual.
If things go badly for the Dems in the mid-terms, it will be likely that Sinema and Manchin will no longer be Dems. It is divisive for them to stay, unless to retain a (false) majority. But should the Dems add a WORKING majority in the House and Senate, of course it would be more useful for them to stay, and be much less influential. I will be hoping for (and supporting) that. Fingers crossed!
The Senate failed to pass voting rights legislation. Where does that leave De
mocrats?
Boston Globe – Jan 20
It is just wrong to characterize Sinema & Manchin as ‘more moderate’ Dems.
Way to energize the base!
Mitch McConnell says Black people vote at similar rates to ‘Americans’
AP via Boston Globe – Jan 20
(Maybe the Dem base also.)
However, we may also be entering a period when the progressive side of the Dems is very demoralized, angry, staying at home on voting day.
Fred,
I believe that ” the progressive side of the Dems is very demoralized, angry, staying at home on voting day” has been true for 50 years. However, since then we have substantially lowered the bar on what it means to be progressive, replacing that with mixed nuts and limousines.
My understanding is that the Senate is a continuing body as far as their rules. I think they could elect to pass a rule change now to go into effect in the future, even after it gets partially renewed at elections. Regardless of how it started, both parties have used it in exactly the same manner as Republicans use it (or threaten to use it) today. They could propose to reform the debate rules in certain ways, to go into effect in January 2027 when the Senate reconvenes after the 2026 election. New rule now for a time when every Senate seat has been through an election cycle. Just knowing that the filibuster is not going to last as it is right now past a certain point I think will focus minds on conducting Senate business more like the new rule. If this actually is a long term problem of historic proportions, then a plan that takes several years to implement should not be a huge obstacle. If, on the other hand, it is entirely a momentary situation where by January 2023 every Democrat will be agreeing with Sinema’s position now because the election have Republicans now at 51, then just drop it really.
A friend of mine who is both a strong Democrat and attorney was questioning the wisdom of killing the filibuster on similar grounds of the Senate being a continuous body. Her views were that these voting bills were full of federal involvement with voting that the current Supreme Court is almost 100% certain to reject. So Democrats could end up with nothing substantive in exchange for a new Senate rule that McConnell would not need to do anything to bring about if they get the majority back. She thinks it would be wise to take seriously conservative legal thoughts on the matter, because those likely would be what the court eventually goes with. I had a laugh when she said something like ‘Democrats shouldn’t confuse “pep rally” legal articles for what probably will happen’. She also said there was a chance that some states might simply announce that they weren’t going to comply and force the DOJ to start court action.
“Changing the Filibuster rules” and passing Voting bills are two different topics. Break them apart as you are clouding the issue(s). Your friend fails to realize, SCOTUS was the next stop for the rioters. It stopped at the Capitol. What would a flock of conservative judges do then?
Pep-rally democrats as opposed to Republican led rioters attacking the Capitol. How does this compare?
If you believe President Biden, these are linked at this moment, whether or not they might advance independently. His Georgia speech linked them unmistakably, but I agree filibuster reform is not only for voting. I don’t think that the Supreme Court feels intimidated by Jan.6, but I could be. It would be refreshing to here a Democratic Senator in favor of ditching the filibuster talk openly about what he or she would do in the “lame duck” period if filibuster is ended and Republican regain the majority. Would they use their 50 + Harris to reestablish filibuster then? Would you want them to? If so, would you want them to pledge to do so now?
“I” was meant to be “it”.
Eric:
Do you believe the attack on the Capitol was legitimate? It certainly appears to have been supported by insider Republicans who suddenly panicked when they discovered they might be a part of the attackers anger. You have only been here a few days. Everyone here knows of your beliefs. Not once have you shown a smidgen of care concerning the Republican Party physical attack on the Capitol.
It would be refreshing if you did care. But you do not care or give a damn, it is back to the same old, same old tired rhetoric you spew forth. And of course Repub politicians and Repub appointed judges do not care “now” about the attack or future attacks. What would they do if they were attacked? Panic . . .
It is one year after the attack. The effort now is to run the clock out so Republicans can make an attempt to regain control. If they do, no one will pay for the crimes committed on January 6th.
The VP voting to break a tie was always a part of the Senate. Do you know the history of the filibuster? The House votes in the same manner as what it was in the Senate at one time. The Dems have talked openly about eliminating the filibuster which was never thought to be used as it is today or decades ago. One person controls the Republican Senate.
The VP in ceremony approves the electoral ballots. Pence knew of the attempt to overturn the election via the electoral counting. Cruz knew of it too, as well as other Republican Senators. Why didn’t they say anything? Republican House Rep. Jordan was out stirring up the crowd pre-attack on January 6th. McCrthy had a clue too.
I am pissed, I am pissed because there are Republican criminals who believe they should not be held accountable for there subversive and out in the open actions pre-Januarey 6th, during January 6th, and after January 6th. They lied then and are lying now. A vast number of Republican constituents believed in the overthrow of the presidency. And here you are talking smack about the filibuster. Ask McConnell what he wants to do. He runs the place.
We need to get past January 6th. This will not go away until some of those who planned this take over are jailed and the rest of the story is told. Republicans and you for that matter have no regrets. Not a smidgen . . .
Really, they use them in the same manner? Republicans are not afraid of McConnell?
What just happened is two pseudo-democrats have road blocked the passage of a democratic bill to revise the filibuster rules to something else and perhaps akin to what was done in the past or perhaps what is being done in the House or perhaps a compromise. I did not hear any threats of primarying someone else in their respective states. There are enough nut jobs on the Republican side McConnell could find someone. Perhaps another football coach or perhaps a basketball coach this time who might aid in the overthrow of an election.