If RBG’s seat is filled, Dems should go nuclear across the board

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

No, the Democrats should go more moderate. They should:

Offer to vote for Trump's pick for RBG's seat.
Agree to lower prescription drug prices and send seniors a check.
Agree to fund the Wall.
Agree to the skinny Covid package McConnell wants.
Agree to legislatively repeal DACA.
Withdraw lawsuits against Trump and promise not to go after him or his associates legally for corruption.
Agree to end the rioting and looting of Portland.

In exchange, Trump, McConnell and Pelosi would get together and find a consensus judge that all three can agree on.

This should have been clear after the Obama years and the time Democrats tried to pass the Republican bill only to find it filibustered (in addition to the Garland nomination), but regardless of any deals struck with Trump or individual "moderate" Republican Senators, McConnell is usually actively against compromising even where Republicans stand to benefit from this. Why? Because this strengthens the process of governance in a liberal democratic system, which he is opposed to. Polarisation, gridlock, and the diminishment of faith in responsive democracy and any potentially benevolent functions of the state are net positives.

In any case, Democrats can't actually agree to "end the rioting and looting" as many of the peaceful protesters - let alone the violent ones - have little respect for them.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Couldn't Congress (at least in theory) strip the court of a good chunk of its power? It may cause a constitutional crisis if Congress passed a law stripping the court of its power of unrestricted judicial review, but constitutionally speaking, Congress likely has that right. But then again, this entire administration has been four straight years of constitutional crisis.

That would arguably be more radical than court packing.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

However, if the Dems really want to go nuclear, they should pass a new Voting Rights Act that includes a provision for “political reparations”.  This would amount to something like a 10-year moratorium on white people voting.  

Just white men. No need to punish white women.

On the contrary, all white people must be disenfranchised for the sin of having a similar skin tone to a number of individuals who voted in a fashion that displeased us. There are aboslutely zero contradictions between shutting people out of democracy in such a manner and trying to ensure fair and humanitarian governance.

This and the KY thread have me increasingly convinced that the reactionaries have won long-term victories by bringing the opposition around to their points of view on racial divides, the basic functions of the welfare state, etc.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

This and the KY thread have me increasingly convinced that the reactionaries have won long-term victories by bringing the opposition around to their points of view on racial divides, the basic functions of the welfare state, etc.

Yeah, I think that die was cast in much of Europe in the 80s with Thatcher and in the US in the 90s with Clinton (who--hot take alert--I believe makes more sense as an "American Thatcher" than Reagan does).

If you want room for optimism, some of the attitudes here seem to have changed again - there is much less of an emphasis on "scroungers" or even immigrants than there used to be and an acceptance that the level of inequality is problematic.

BoJo is very incompetent in his efforts and quite cynical in a lot of them, too, but his government has committed to a sort of economic protectionism beyond Brexit which I wouldn't have expected from solo Cameron, the coalition or even the Blair administration. In addition to problems caused by the government's ineptitude, there are pitfalls resulting from this (lockdown policy being the big one), but I think it's pretty promising that the plans to clear out PFI weren't immediately trashed after the election.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Is there any particular reason why you have a Vatican avatar now, Jalaketu, or have you just bought into the "political Catholicism is when you're right-wing; the more right-wing you are, the more Catholic it is " nonsense-mongering of people like Bill Barr and Matteo Salvini?

Mmh care to explain?

Salvini doesn't strike me as someone who thinks that what he's doing is political Catholicism unless you want to count performative nonsense about going to sanctuaries and similar?

"Performative nonsense about going to sanctuaries and similar" is about my understanding of what #right-wing populist political Catholicism consists of, yes.

Uh ok it just sounded strange to put him right next to William Barr, whom I'd say fits more your original definition and less "performative nonsense".

Also I know some people *cough cough my father* who buy into more serious right-wing cEntRist mOdeRaTe political Catholicism and Salvini is generally hated in those circles, but you may already know these dynamics.

"A day may come when La Lega has a PM, but it is not this day."