Don’t worry, be happy
Well, I wanted Gillum and Abrams to win, and that Georgia election was filthy and I hope the NAACP sues the state. And of course I wanted the Republicans to lose the Senate but I knew it wasn’t at all likely. States like Wyoming with fewer people than Seattle (and 30 other US cities) have as many senators as California with its 30 million; we have no business calling ourselves a democracy.
But don’t worry! There’s always chocolate!
To all my American friends: I hope you get the outcome you're hoping for today! But if not, remember that there are many things in life that are better than politics, such as art, beauty, nature, music, sex, food, exercise, friends, lovers, your kids, your connection with others.
— Claire Lehmann (@clairlemon) November 6, 2018
But good luck enjoying them if you have a chronic or life-threatening illness and can’t get health care, or if you’re accidentally pregnant and don’t want and can’t afford a baby but can’t get an abortion, or if you’re a recent immigrant and terrified Trump will change the rules such that you’ll be kicked out any moment, or if you were never even able to vote yesterday because the wait was 4.5 hours and your boss would fire you if you were away from work that long, or if the nature in your area burned to the ground last summer…and so on.
Yes, there are lots of good things in life that are not directly politics, but the freedom and health and flourishing needed to benefit from them are all rooted in political decisions. It’s wildly fatuous to think all those things just flow from the sky while we happily embrace them, while politics happens somewhere else with no connection to you and your kids and your friends. The point of politics isn’t how “good” it is, as in a tasting menu – the point isn’t aesthetic enjoyment. The point is that it sets the terms for how we live. It can set them such that a happy few get to revel in luxury in some Downton Abbey in the sky while everyone else slaves to support them, or it can set them more equitably. Claire Lehmann can eat all the brioche she wants but it won’t change that fact.
In my state, the voters voted for Medicaid expansion – yay! But…these same voters voted to retain all of the Republican incumbents who loathe Medicaid expansion with a visceral hatred that springs partially out of their hatred of taxes and partially out of their hatred for the poor. So will we actually gain the expansion voted for? Not if our governor (who just got reelected in spite of the fact that he is vile) has anything to say about it.
Don’t try to tell me Republican voters are voting how they are because they want a better life and believe the Democrats won’t bring that to them because the Democrats are only interested in “identity politics”. Don’t even try to tell me that. I know better. I live in the middle of red America, and I hear what my neighbors say. And it isn’t “I need a job”. They believe no one listens to them because there are other people that are demanding equal rights with them, and that sometimes (not often, but sometimes) get listened to and have gained a great deal from the days when said people (i.e. women and all non-white people) were unable to vote, work for pay, or even leave the grounds without permission. They are angry not that their kids can’t pray in school, since they can and all the parents actually know that, but that other people’s kids can’t be forced to pray, and pray to the “right” god. They are angry because the Democrats put up a black candidate for president, and got him elected, and then put up a woman for president who seemed to think she was entitled to run. They are angry because they are not recognized as the warrior kings they are, and are instead considered the equal of those they consider lesser, rather than being masters of those they consider lesser.
So they vote not for jobs, not for enfranchisement, not for anything that pundits claim they vote for, but instead they vote for hate.
A much more compelling reason to feel better is that Democrats at least won the House. Not exactly the blue wave that should have happened (if Americans were as disgusted by Trump and his party as they should be), but now his legislative agenda can be stopped and his corruption can be investigated. And the 2020 redistributing process will be less unfavorable.
On the other hand, the Senate does seem increasingly difficult to win for the Democrats, whsuch means the judiciary will also get more conservative. Very anti-democracy, as you pointed out.
Redistricting you mean?
[…] a comment by iknklast on Don’t worry, be […]
A suggestion. Two senators per state might have seemed a reasonable number once upon a time. But it certainly isn’t now. How about one senator per state for every state with fewer than two million residents, and an additional senator per state for each additional two million residents? How else are they going to be able to represent the people?
Well I think senators should be proportioned to the population just as reps are, but it’s a constitutional matter and it’s not going to happen.
@TiggerTheWing #5 and @Ophelia #6 – why?
As I’ve heard it described, the US House of Reps can be likened to the European Parliament, where the members represent the people of those states, and so the number of representatives of each state is vaguely proportional to their population. Whereas the US Senate can be likened to the Council of the European Union, or even the UN General Assembly, where the delegates represent the states themselves (or their governments), and all member states are given equal say, regardless of population.
Do you think it’s unreasonable that the USA gets the same number of seats (1) at the UNGA as Iceland, when their respective populations are 330 million and 330 thousand? Does that kind of institution seem wrong in the general case, or only in the context of the USA federal govt?
With respect to the UN, all the real power (economic sanctions, blockade, military intervention) goes through the Security Council, where the US has a permanent seat and a veto and nothing to complain about. The UN also facilitates the drafting of treaties, but those are binding only on the nations that ratify them.
The General Assembly is primarily a forum that passes non-binding resolutions, so one country one vote makes sense. Many of the smaller members don’t always attend and few even try to exert outsized influence.
The Senate is the upper house, with powers to ratify treaties and approve appointments that are not shared with the House. Senators from the smallest states can wield tremendous power sitting from a committee chair position.
The Senate is also an anachronism, because the vast differences in population between states with multiple modern urban areas (e.g., California) and those with none (e.g., Wyoming) could never have been foreseen by the people who wrote the Constitution.
Unfortunately, as Ophelia noted, the same disproportion applies to passage of constitutional amendments, so we’re stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
Karellen, it might not be so bad if it wasn’t for the electoral college, where the inequity is enhanced. My vote, because I am in a poorly populated midwestern state, theoretically counts more than my son’s vote, because he is in California. In reality, my vote doesn’t count at all, because I have never in my life voted for a presidential candidate that has won the state I am in, so my vote is just spitting in the wind. My vote goes to the Republican whether I vote Republican or not.
People all over the place are bending over backwards to argue for why it is a good thing. It means that the midwest doesn’t have to live under the rule desired by the coast! Right. It means the coast (the majority) has to live under the rule desired by the midwest (the minority). It gives bigotry a louder voice than inclusion. It gives hatred a louder voice than tolerance. It does exactly what it was intended to do – elevates some people up above others. In the abstract, it was supposed to prevent a president like Trump, but in the reality, it gave us Trump.
The liberals who scream bloody murder anytime anyone suggests the electoral college might be a problem are trying to show the “flyover country” that they care about them, that they feel they should be listened to, and that their problems are ultimately the most important there can be. They don’t stop to think about what the electoral college is doing. It is saying that some votes are worth more than others. And whose votes are those that are worth more than others? White people…especially men. Cities have larger percentages of people of color, immigrants, and women than the rural midwest that is elevated by both the Electoral College and the Senate. So we are able to shout down voices that might see the world differently, because white males are once again protected by the system (and their white wives).
I see no reason to compare our Senate to the UN. The purposes of the bodies are different. As for the EU General Assembly, I haven’t studied their situation well enough to speak on that, but if it is having the same effect on nations that our Senate is on states, than maybe it isn’t a good idea. I don’t know. I leave that to someone else to decide. What I do know is that our situation is heavily skewed in favor of bigotry, hatred, Christianity, and whiteness.
Ophelia @6, I agree. The constitution sets up the Senate as a body representing States, not people. It quite intentionally set up a system where the oligarchs of the time could have ultimate control.