January 6th will be a freak show. Biden will become president because the only way to stop it would be for the House to agree, and that won't happen.

Going forward, the GOP becomes even more dangerous and radicalized.

A few hopeful points:

The GOP could very well lose control of the Senate.

Because these GOP Senators will force a vote, the GOP may fracture, with moderates forced out. While this radicalizes the party, they lose numbers.

https://t.co/pb95rlJpqA
A few reasons. As @ProfBrianKalt points out, refusing to seat them because they say the election wasn't valid gives credence to the lie that the election wasn't valid.

Moreover, there's no authority to refuse to seat an elected rep for telling lies. . .
https://t.co/dhbJeCHU8F
. . . which is what refusing to seat them would amount to.

The Democrats say, "You are doing really bad things so we won't seat you."

See the problem with that?

(1) It's illegal. The House doesn't get to decide who is seated. The states send their own reps.

moreover . . .
(2) If you say, "The House gets to refuse to seat a person who tells a lie about the election," where does that lead?

If things continue this direction, the political divide will not longer be liberal v. conservative.

The divide will be pro- democracy v. anti-democracy. . .
. . which means at least one party has to stand up for rule of law, which means that Pelosi can't take it on herself (and the Democrats can't take it on themselves) to decide who gets sworn in.

The states decide. Period.
The states elect their own representatives. They certify their elections.

There is no legal authority for the House to say, "You are breaking the law (or lying or inciting violence) or whatever, therefore, we won't seat you."

There are consquences. . .
https://t.co/DJhmgAVmAk
But because of due process and rule of law, the consequences are not quick or easy.

Quick and easy consequences happen only in authoritarian regimes. The autocrat decides. It's easy. No due process. No process.

See the appeal? Process is slow.
There are procedures for indicting a person and charging a person with a crime.

We don't decide as a group.
Pelosi doesn't decide.
There are things the house can do, but refusing to seat them isn't one of them.

What if . . .
https://t.co/MWeOg2c86q
. . . the elected representatives are acting at the direction of their constituents?

What if voters deliberately choose to elect a person who has vowed to end democracy?

See the problem?

People want easy fixes, but the problem is that a lot of Americans don't want democracy.
Yes.

Also, in a two-party system, it's hard for a party without a majority to maintain control of the presidency. If the Democrats win the Senate next week, they can take steps to reduce the ability of a minority party to hold power beyond its numbers.
https://t.co/YxnxIPz8YR
People who claim to be pro-democracy want the members of the House to overthrow rule of law and take it on themselves to ignore elections and decide who can and cannot be members of Congress.

Careful.

Rule of law means following all laws . . .
. . . even those in the way of what we think is best right now.

If both sides disregard rule of law to get the results they want, say goodbye to democracy. Neither side will be defending rule of law.

Moreover, the "both sides are equally bad" argument will be proven true.
The Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 does not give the Speaker of the House unilateral power to decide who can be seated in Congress and who cannot.

Can you imagine if that were true?

The issue is how this is defined and enforced.

https://t.co/wyMcOYeQCi
I can't imagine reading the text to mean:

"The Speaker of the House has the authority to refuse to seat members of Congress who the Speaker has determined violated this section."

See the problem? Read carefully. What is "insurrection"? What if the person never held office?
You all won't like this, but the Constitution contains a provision for removing House members who behave badly and against the interests of democracy.

They have short terms. Vote them out.

The problem is that so many voters support what they are doing.
https://t.co/BYJqkjZQze
You won't like it because you want a quick fix, but there are no quick fixes.

If a majority of voters sent Representative A to Congress to enact an agenda which the majority perceive as contrary to the best interests of democracy, you can't refuse to seat that member.
He is supported by a majority of Senators, who in turn, are supported by a majority of voters who are anti-democracy

https://t.co/JhSk8JVEsO
McConnell is thus enacting an anti-democratic agenda.

Do you see a problem with urging the Democrats to follow his example?
The party trying to jettison rule of law has an advantage over the party trying to uphold rule of law.

The party trying to uphold rule of law must follow the rules.
The other is free to disregard laws and norms.

Fortunately, a majority of Americans want democracy.
The way to save democracy is not to imitate the party trying to destroy democracy.

The way to save democracy is with more democracy.

What do I mean?

See my list: https://t.co/Er6v4syFQS

More from Teri Kanefield

It looks like 45 Republican Senators voted against holding an impeachment trial for Trump.

I hope nobody had high hopes that the GOP would do the right thing.

The GOP remains the Party of Trump and is hardening into an extremist anti-democratic

They are the anti-rule of law, anti truth party.
https://t.co/e6EME39xNn
Fortunately, they're outnumbered.

Not by much, but they're outnumbered.


Hi, everyone.

A lot of these doomsday comments are annoying me.

Have you all learned nothing over the past few years?

You might want to duck because, I'm about to go on a tear . . .

The same people telling me we're doomed and democracy is dead are probably the same people who told me (1) Trump would make himself dictator (2) The Supreme Court would keep him in office and (3) he would never leave the White House.

Nobody owes you a democracy . . .

My mantra the past 4 years: democracy will survive if enough people want it to, and are willing to do the work.

Did the doomsday people happen to see that the vote was 55-45 in favor of holding a trial?

I think the problem is there has been so much peddling of hope porn. . .
This is what he wants to do.

No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.

1/


The question is how to move forward.

My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.

Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.

2/

The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.

It’s a constant battle.

3/

Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.

4/

Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.

We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

That's why I keep saying there are no easy
Reading recommendation: Rand Corp, "The Russian Firehose of Falsehoods Propaganda Model," includes advice on how to counter a rapid and continuous stream of lies.
https://t.co/1Jg5CvgrJC

1/

The liar has a “shameless willingness” to tell outrageous lies that lots of people know are lies.

The liar doesn’t care about consistency.
He doesn’t care if it’s obvious he’s lying.
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT
In fact, that's the whole point.

Putin perfected the method.

2/

It seems to come naturally to Trump.

@TimothyDSnyder tells how reporters were often so astonished by Putin's outrageous lies, that they focused on the lies instead of Putin's latest atrocities.

The lies became the news.
The actual news gets pushed off the stage.

3/

The goal is the “disruption of truthful reporting and messaging.”
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT

That's why Trump really wants an actual trial, and why he was so annoyed with the Supreme Court (and other courts) refusing to hear the case.

He wants a stage for the lies.

4/

From the Rand study: The Firehose of Falsehood technique “entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience.”

I think the "entertainment" part applies to the GOP leadership who know Trump is lying but cheer the lies because they are so destructive.

5/

More from Politics

You May Also Like