My comment: If it is inaccurate to say the Dems managed to pass improvements to the ECA over GOP opposition, what is it accurate to say?
PD's response: It's accurate to say that the *bipartisan* Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 was introduced by Republican Senator Susan Collins and co-sponsored by Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, and that it was signed into law by Joe Biden. It's accurate to say that the Bill was the product of concerned Republicans and Democrats all of whom were motivated by the concern that electoral subversion after 1/6 and Trump's attempt to steal the election could easily recur if at least these minimal steps were taken. That it could not have been passed without the critical input of Republicans against the Trump-Maga wing of the Republican Party, which was purging these very Republicans. Therefore, it was a now or never legislative act which, again, not only required Republican buy in (before the anti-Trump Republicans would be purged and the bill would be impossible to pass after 2022), but that it was drafted, negotiated, and passed all on a *bi-partisan* (not "Democratic") basis despite the objections of most of the Trump-loyalists in the GOP ( not the GOP as such, as, for example, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell voted for it and promoted it as did the often Trump-friendly Rand Paul who mad a statement praising the bill, thus giving other Repubs some cover to do likewise).
From a WaPo article at the time:
A *bipartisan* bill that would change how members of Congress could object to electoral votes — Congress’s response to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection — passed the House on Friday as part of a sweeping spending bill to fund the government.
The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act [was] sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and passed by the Senate as part of the funding package....[and that Joe Biden stated that] “*Bipartisan* members of Congress passed the Electoral Count Act and took long overdue steps to protect the integrity of our elections,” [adding that] “This is *critical bipartisan action* that will help ensure that the will of the people is preserved.”
In a joint statement Thursday, Collins and Manchin welcomed the bill’s passage and noted that it was the result of *nearly a year of bipartisan negotiations.*“Our bipartisan group worked tirelessly to draft this legislation that fixes the flaws of the archaic and ambiguous Electoral Count Act of 1887 and establishes clear guidelines for our system of certifying and counting electoral votes for President and Vice President,” the two said. [all emph added]
The emphasis here on * bipartisanship* (as with the 1/6 committee itself) is unmistakable. To frame it as one party "managing to do something despite the other party's objections" is not accurate. Concerned legislators across the ideological spectrum from the likes of Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Ben Sasse, Rob Portman, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul and other Republicans made this positive, but inadequate, last minute passage of the bill in the omnibus package possible. If it hadn't been done THEN, it could not have been done at all because of the crucial input and voting of Republicans willing to take the risk despite Trump's threats and intimidation. That's because most-- though not all-- of these critical Republicans either retired or were replaced by Trump picks in the midterms.
It's sort of like calling 1/6 a Democratic rather than a bi-partisan committee. That would be quite inaccurate, esp. since Cheney's work was probably the most rigorous and uncompromising of all despite her awful far Right Wing politics. Meanwhile, many of the most vocal critics of Trump in the Democratic Party (for example, AOC, and other "progressives") played no role in either the 1/6 Committee's gathering and presenting of evidence, or the drafting or the promotion of ECA Reforms.
To make my point, I typed the following statement into the Google search bar: "Progressive Democrats urge passage of Electoral College Reform Act" and
none of the returns I saw included references to well known, influential progressive Democrats.
Rather than hunting for articles that make this point (you requested some corroborative articles) it is precisely the *absence* of articles about the loudest critics of Trump who failed even to mention and promote this legislation in all their tweets, media interviews, PR statements etc.-- it is this conspicuous inaction on doing what is possible to prevent electoral subversion that supports my claim that Dems had 3 years and have been "all talk and no action" on the pro-democracy front. The same is true of banning the dangerous far right militias that have coordinated with Trump (Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, Oath Keepers and the like-- even Canada banned most of them).
I've heard more about Ukraine from "progressives" (sorry, I don't think these politicians represent what I would call "progress" in concrete action to prevent electoral subversion) in connection with the cause of democracy than I have heard from them regarding the John Eastman memo playboook revealing unacceptable loopholes in our system. I don't think it's right to say the majority of Dems, and ironically even those most critical of Trump as a would-be-dictator on which I agree, have done due diligence here. They've complained in the limelight about Trumpism and MAGA, sure. But workhorses they have not been.
I think there's a lot of phoniness and pious virtue signalling going on these days on the so-called Left Wing of the Dem Party. I hear much more about frankly vague ideas about fighting social inequities than I see realistic attempts at legislating to get much of anything done that's not pie in the sky non-starter stuff like "Green New Deal" which has a snowball's chance in Hell given the composition of both chambers in this country. They should be grown up enough to swallow that reality, and get busy with what Bismarck aptly called the "politics of the possible." I'm an idealist at heart, but a realist in practice. I think we've fallen into a sad state in which messaging has become more important than governing for many poltiticians whether they virtue signal as loyal Trumpists (to their base that's a virtue) or as quasi-socialist progressive Dems who will usher in all the things they're "supposed" to stand for (clean energy, a hundred splendid social programs that don't stand a chance of even getting a vote on the floor, much less passing). This is not the time for utopian idealism but for minimalism. We need to save the bare minimum bottom line status quo ante of a flawed democracy with plutocratic features. That's what we had before Trump. We may lose even that admittedly shabby state of affairs and decline precipitously into counter-democratic conditions.
All of this is much more basic than, and is presupposed by loftier goals such as a Green New Deal with all kinds of government programs based on progressive taxation that nobody will support right now. I too want to see some of those measures (not exactly as advertised by the progs, but yes, an end to regressive taxation, corporate tax evasion via loopholes and offshore accounts, universal healthcare for real, et al.). But right now about half the country supports politicians who won't even defend the Affordable Care Act that, frankly, their own voters now rely on even if they don't think about it as "Obamacare." So, in such a divided and confused age where so many voters are lost and spun by the pols, social media propaganda, disinfo and misinfo, and all the rest-- where many people who think they know what is in their interest believe in conspiracies, and tell pollsters they are prepared to use violence against the government if necessary to "protect their liberties"--in such an age we need clear-headed, balanced realists who understand the "art of the possible" and are ready and willing to roll up their sleaves and do things like that minimal ECA reform as unglamorous as it may be. It won't get you more Twitter followers (or Mastadon now or whatever); it won't make college students love you; it won't rile up Trump haters that are glued to MSNBC, it won't be written up by progressive op-ed journalists in the frankly mainstream, corporate media like NYT and WaPo who deep down support the status quo and bottom line. It won't make you famous. But it MIGHT (if enough people get busy negotiating with anyone who will get anything constructive done) prevent the MAGA lunatics from gaining total control of the system. Right now, that's my focus. Not pie in the sky. Just holding back the intruders at the gates who have already crashed the (Republican) party, as it were. It's getting quite late for this. Like some others, I was active in the Trump resistance (remember Indivisible in 2016 and 2017?). Somewhere along the way, the progressives who started that movement have lapsed into rhetoric over realism; talk over substantive policy; language over legislation. That's why I say, it's LESS important (not totally unimportant) what we call the dangerous Trumpian insurgency than what we DO to fight it back.
The next election may be the last opportunity to turn things around for a long while, maybe even for good. If Biden (as expected) runs again and trots out the fear mongering about MAGA without having done anything about it after all that melodramatic speechifying last fall, it will fall flat. It won't be enough to motivate voters to show up and get engaged. We need ANTI-MAGA LEADERSHIP and instead all I read each day is about American Exceptionalism, fighting autocracy in Russia, preparing to fight the Chinese over Taiwan (that's suicidal), while Europe falls apart and the majority of countries in the world do not see Russia and China as existential threats, but valued suppliers of goods and business partners. They were rightly against Putin's invasion, but not for an embargo on a state they rely on for affordable energy, goods, foodstuffs etc. And Biden spends most of his time shoring up NATO, asking Europe to endure much higher energy prices for LNG we now chiefly supply them with for more $ than before, and scolding the "neutral" and developing countries who don't want to it or agree. All of that bombastic talk of America as the Leader of the Free World could end in one second if Republicans get the executive branch. Biden acts like we are a strong united democracy ready to take on Russia and China, while keeping the global economy sound and preventing our own internal demise all at the same time. It's not so. A house divided cannot stand. Our politicians all across the specturm of both parties have (in different ways of course) become detached from basic realities where the rubber hits the road. The wheels are coming off the vehicle called America, and there's less than a year to sell some reasonable ideas about the future to voters. Ukraine and China are NOT going to be the main issues. But inflation resulting from Putin's invasion AND our economic response to it in attempting an embargo the world beyond Europe doesn't really want (I speak of Brazil, India, Israel, the Gulf States, much of Asia outside S. Korea and Japan, South Africa and most of the countries in Africa, Latin America etc.) Even Macron in France said, defending good trade relations with China, "Europe must not be a vassal of the US." Right now our media is having a field day criticizing him for that. But he's stating something that resonates with many in the world on that point. It reminds me of an incisive remark made by outgoing Angela Merkel a few years ago when Biden swept into power saying "America's back now." She replied, "Really? For how long?"
The next election is right around the corner.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Questions:
1. Is that criticism of the Democrats defense of democracy at least mostly correct or not?
2. What can or should average people do, if they are concerned about the collapse of our flawed democracy into some form of an authoritarian autocracy-plutocracy-theocracy?
