The Tipping Point

Hmpf, USA has lasted 240 years without 1 party rule.

1 party states are the fragile ones.
When those dates fail, they tend to fail spectacularly. But you rarely have a two-party or multi-party system with one party keeping power for literally decades at a time. One party systems do. They are resilient in their grip on power, not necessarily in the success of the state itself.

Please tell me that I am not the only one who sees the glaring paradox in this statement.

When "rule is achieved" how do we recognize it as permanent? Ooops, they seated a justice on the SCOTUS, does that create "permanent rule"? A generation of rule? A decade? A day? Who knows? How long do we have to observe to declare it permanent?

If it really is permanent, it isn't incredibly difficult to end, it is by definition impossible.
Obviously nothing is "permanent" in the sense of being "never ending." If you have permanent custody, you don't control the children forever, just until they turn 18 and you kick them out to fend for themselves, social Darwin style. A "permanent alliance" in Civ still only lasts until the end of the game. But a system that cannot be overturned without severe internal ructions - whether that's a political revolution or a split in the GOP itself - can reasonably be described as "permanent" in this case.

I think we are genuinely at a point where the GOP has entrenched their power for decades, largely due to the stacking of the SCOTUS. Even if the Democrats sweep both Houses, impeach Trump and Pence, and win every seat at every level of government, the SCOTUS will still be stacked until the rapists and fellow conservatives die. The efforts to disenfranchise minority groups are accelerating, and a racist serial rapist sits in the White House. The GOP needs just a little more time to turn this entrenched structural advantage into permanent one party rule.
 
Obviously nothing is "permanent" in the sense of being "never ending." If you have permanent custody, you don't control the children forever, just until they turn 18 and you kick them out to fend for themselves, social Darwin style. A "permanent alliance" in Civ still only lasts until the end of the game. But a system that cannot be overturned without severe internal ructions - whether that's a political revolution or a split in the GOP itself - can reasonably be described as "permanent" in this case.

I think we are genuinely at a point where the GOP has entrenched their power for decades, largely due to the stacking of the SCOTUS. Even if the Democrats sweep both Houses, impeach Trump and Pence, and win every seat at every level of government, the SCOTUS will still be stacked until the rapists and fellow conservatives die. The efforts to disenfranchise minority groups are accelerating, and a racist serial rapist sits in the White House. The GOP needs just a little more time to turn this entrenched structural advantage into permanent one party rule.

If the Democrats swept both houses, had the authority in hand to impeach Trump and Pence, and were winning every seat at every level of government, do you think that unstacking the SCOTUS would somehow be beyond their reach?

The efforts to disenfranchise the not GOP are accelerating because the rate at which the GOP is diminishing is accelerating. Their efforts at disenfranchising in themselves also accelerate that diminishing. They are on the treadmill of doom, not the road to glory.
 
There are a few ways to unstack the courts. You can create more judge seats. You can impose term limits.

You can investigate Kavanaugh, make a solid case against him for lying under oath to congress, and bounce his ass.
 
How much does it cost to buy a Governor ?
And would it really have mattered if it would be a GOP Governor (on which the attempt has been made by Nike) or a Dem Governor ?
BTW, one of the odd things of Belgian politics is that in a period of 4 months before an election all commercial adds for political parties are forbidden.

From the RollingStone:
Is billionaire Nike founder Phil Knight trying to buy a Republican governor? If that question sounds outlandish, so are the facts. Knight has directly given the campaign of Oregon gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler $2.5 million dollars. Knight has also given $1 million to the Republican Governors’ Association, which steered nearly that amount into Buehler’s campaign.

Knight’s backing of a member of Donald Trump’s Republican party creates dissonance at a moment when Nike has launched its new “Just Do It” campaign featuring blackballed quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Trump has maligned Kaepernick as a “son of a *****” and derided other athletes who kneel during the national anthem to protest police violence. Nike’s top star, NBA titan LeBron James, has also feuded with Trump on Twitter, blasting the president as “U bum.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nike-phil-knight-republican-donor-746122/

On topic
I think once the Dem's are back on top, there is some overhaul needed, not only SCOTUS, but also adressing some of the weak points exposed of the system.
A bit pessimistic I think that the US had a golden period of democracy around and just after WW2, than 2-3 decades of harvesting and consolidating.
That leaves a bit open where it will bounce back to.
And not only for the US, but also for many other western countries.
 
Last edited:
Please note that the founder of Nike, now retired, may be still a part of Nike management...but he isn't Nike. Not that an individual buying a governor is somehow better than a company buying a governor, but for clarity's sake.
 
Please note that the founder of Nike, now retired, may be still a part of Nike management...but he isn't Nike. Not that an individual buying a governor is somehow better than a company buying a governor, but for clarity's sake.

yes
That is a point I cannot fully judge
In the article it was adressed with this:
The 80-year-old Knight, who is worth more than $30 billion, stepped down as Nike chairman in 2016, but remains “chairman emeritus” at the footwear and apparel giant, and the Knight family controls two seats on the Nike board. Knight is donating his own riches to boost Buehler.

But the money trail also leads back to Nike. On declarations with the Oregon Secretary of State, Knight lists his address as Nike’s global headquarters in Beaverton, Oregon. He lists Nike as his employer and his occupation as “chairman.”

It leaves at me the feeling that it is all just business. Business using populist political sentiments for a marketing stunt that worked so far. Big Business seniors using political institutions as facade for its strategic long term interests.
At the expense of the democracy.
I think the increased power from wealth and cynism over the last decades, is making the the elections more and more a side show. Getting lawful legitimacy.
Or is my understanding of that power development wrong ?
 
Last edited:
We mostly have had malapportionment, the giving of extra seats to certain zones (typically non capital city areas). This was the core of Bjelke Peterson's system and also the Playmander in SA. Western Australia retains just such a malapportionment, albeit fairly modest by comparison.

We don't have so much a history of actual gerrymandering, ie drawing of rigged non-compact districts for partisan advantage. I can't think of any actual corruptions of the tradition of a non partisan public service to that end. They've just drawn up unfair rules for said public service to implement.

There were some very rigged local govt systems well before Baird. I lived in Mascot in Botany Bay where there usually weren't even elections due to lack of opposition. Labor had concocted a spillover vote system (preferential block voting) back in the 1990s where the first seat in the ward had its votes count towards the second. Basically despite it being multi member, the system guaranteed all seats to the largest votegetter. When Ron Hoenig became member for Heffron after being mayor, it was the first time he faced a real election.
Here in Alberta, the governments under the United Farmers of Alberta (when they were a political party and just not a grain elevator operator and farm supplies shop chain like they later retired to become) from 1921-1935 and the Alberta Social Credit Association (1935-1971, which included Premier Earnest Manning, who was longer serving than Bjelke-Petersen and the second-longest serving First Minister of any sort in the Commonwealth of Nations next only to Lee Kwan-yew (though I believe Bjelke-Petersen cracked the top five of that list along with those two) both heavily over-weighed the rural constituencies by allowing them to send an MLA with only a very small bar for population, but the two big, booming, growing cities and urban centres, Edmonton and Calgary, literally only had five or six MLA's out of 63 total between them, or something ridiculous like that.
 
My first thought when I read that was "how does one stop being chairman emeritus?" There's this joke. When you get married you think you have a partner forever, but when you get divorced you really do have an ex forever.

His position as former chairman, his use of their headquarters to screen his mail...even family members with board seats...doesn't provide any indication of his actual influence within the company. Families with great wealth do tend towards monolithic structure with some elder wielding more directive power than most of us would likely find normal, but those family members on the board are not necessarily just mindlessly compliant proxies and he may not even be the actual directing member of the family.

And with all that said, no, you aren't wrong @Hrothbern, unfortunately you aren't wrong at all.
 
Hmpf, USA has lasted 240 years without 1 party rule.

1 party states are the fragile ones.
You forgot the "Era of Good Feelings." Just saying...
 
When those dates fail, they tend to fail spectacularly. But you rarely have a two-party or multi-party system with one party keeping power for literally decades at a time. One party systems do. They are resilient in their grip on power, not necessarily in the success of the state itself.


Obviously nothing is "permanent" in the sense of being "never ending." If you have permanent custody, you don't control the children forever, just until they turn 18 and you kick them out to fend for themselves, social Darwin style. A "permanent alliance" in Civ still only lasts until the end of the game. But a system that cannot be overturned without severe internal ructions - whether that's a political revolution or a split in the GOP itself - can reasonably be described as "permanent" in this case.

I think we are genuinely at a point where the GOP has entrenched their power for decades, largely due to the stacking of the SCOTUS. Even if the Democrats sweep both Houses, impeach Trump and Pence, and win every seat at every level of government, the SCOTUS will still be stacked until the rapists and fellow conservatives die. The efforts to disenfranchise minority groups are accelerating, and a racist serial rapist sits in the White House. The GOP needs just a little more time to turn this entrenched structural advantage into permanent one party rule.
"Forever is until the author gets sick of the state of affairs and changes his mind," Jack Vance
 
Question is, which is the better long game?

My local government is totally dominated by Republicans. Living in an area where the entire local economy grows out of roots in the defense industrial complex means that if you run for mayor and don't say you are a Republican you are just wasting your time. But everyone in local office will tell you that "being a Republican" has absolutely no bearing on what they do. On a local level there are no partisan issues; a pothole is a pothole.

So as the demographics change inexorably against the Republicans how much of that lower tier government they have captured is likely to remain loyal to their national causes? My local mayoral race is between two Republicans. One of them runs to the Democrats, the other is funding a Democrat candidate to draw off votes from his opponent. If the first one wins he will exemplify the term RINO. If the latter wins he will have to continue to cooperate with the local Democratic party lest he be revealed as having played them and not payed off, which would doom him in two years. But both of them know that every uptick in population makes being a Republican less of a priority, and that maybe ten years from now, maybe a little sooner, and probably not much later, if there are two Republicans and a Democrat on the ballot the Democrat is going to have a good shot at winning. Ten years after that even without splitting the Republican vote a Democrat will have a good shot at winning. The one running as a RINO now may very well be that Democrat then.

Texas is browning, and urbanizing, and getting younger. Most red states are, though not as rapidly as Texas. The overwhelming Republican gerrymandering that Karl Rove engineered in Texas that flipped the state into a platform for GWBush is being revealed as a stopgap measure. It was a dike that compensated for the first three feet of a ten foot tide. Once it is topped it will not only do the GOP no good, it will be held against them in distrust. We already see that happening.

Do you see any blue states that are whitening? Ruralizing? Aging?

Ultimately, using dirty tricks to delay the inevitable has a cost. For all their faults, I think the Democratic party is on the right track on this one.



We've been saying that the last several election cycles. And yet the GOP just keeps winning...
 
We've been saying that the last several election cycles. And yet the GOP just keeps winning...


They do? In 2008 they lost the white house, the house, and the senate. That was ten years ago.
 
We've been saying that the last several election cycles. And yet the GOP just keeps winning...

Yea they won 2010, 12, 14, 16, and 18 is going to be close. That's how effective their machine has been on changing the game. The US is obviously not what I thought it was, its become clear with the associated water cooler talk that goes along with these past 3 years.
 
And yet they still dominated policy well enough so that even a temporary losing of those things didn't really change the direction of the nation at all.

The ACA passed, and it has dominated policy ever since. Without that two year window no USian outside the top 20% would be able to afford anything beyond a pretense of health care by now.
 
The ACA passed, and it has dominated policy ever since. Without that two year window no USian outside the top 20% would be able to afford anything beyond a pretense of health care by now.


What your point amounts to is that in the process of losing a war, the Democrats win an occasional battle.
 
If the Dems added a 10th SCOTUS, it would force side switching of some sort to get a ruling. In order to not look foolish, impotent and locked into partisanship, they would have to rule in a manner that encouraged voting across ideology. I don't think they want to look like Congress.
 
What your point amounts to is that in the process of losing a war, the Democrats win an occasional battle.

No, I'm the one saying that they are winning the war despite losing some battles. The amount of twisting the process to wring out a victory for the GOP just keeps climbing from battle to battle. They are keeping up, no question, but that cheating, in my opinion, has limits. That's why I described it as a three foot dike facing a ten foot tide. 2008 was a leak in the dike. I expect this year there will be another. But ultimately the leaks won't matter because the tide will just top the dike and it will be all over but the flooding, because nothing has really slowed the tide.

In 2012 you had a serious cause for complaint. More votes were cast for Democrats in the house elections than were cast for Republicans, but gerrymandering flipped the result. Then voter suppression started being heavily applied, so subsequent elections again saw more GOP votes than Democrat votes, but despite all suppression the margin has continued to slip and again in 2016 only the gerrymandering kept the margins from being accurately reflected in the result. Squeezing more out of gerrymandering is unlikely. Even with fairly complete control of government that tilt is actually decaying, not increasing. Squeezing more out of suppression is either past a point of diminishing returns or at the very least is close to it. And the tide against the GOP still just keeps rising.

At this point if the Democrats get another two year window its game over for the GOP. Any reform that restores voting rights, or even just protects them against further decay, and the tide rolls over the wall since the tide just keeps going up. Because the GOP offers nothing to anyone who isn't dying off.
 
Back
Top Bottom