Ask the wrong questions and you will always get the wrong answers.
As a Democratic (and democratic) rout seems to grow nearer on November 8, 2022, media outlets are already ramping up opinion pieces describing how the seemingly perpetually ineffective Democratic Party has squandered what was supposed to be a certain inescapable shift to the left as the Hispanic segment of the country grew to a larger share of the entire population. Democratic electoral majorities were viewed to be inevitable as a result. In reality, many areas where Hispanic voters previously voted Democratic over Republican by forty percent margins have dropped to the five to ten percent range and continue shifting to the center or right.
Much of the analysis of this surprise trend focuses on either
- why aren't Democrats acknowledging the desires of the Hispanic segment that has rewarded them with power by acting on their key issues of interest like immigration, wages, etc.? or
- why are Hispanic voters migrating to Republican candidates whose party goals seem antithetical to everything they want?
The first line of analysis implies that Democratic Party leaders are CONSCIOUSLY, CONSISTENTLY taking Hispanic votes each election day then CONSCIOUSLY, CONSISTENTLY flipping them the bird for the next term and instead culling favor with both the interests of the Hollywood / Wall Street elite and far-left environmental and social interest groups. The second line of thought implies that voting blocs have become so frustrated with the lack of perceived progress by voting Democratic they are deciding to actively vote AGAINST Democratic candidates in an electoral fit of pique but might return if Democrats "get the message" and do better next time. If true, this second theory would confirm voters thinking this way have no clue whatsoever about how the American government is structured and how very narrow interests have perfected their manipulation of that structure towards very undemocratic goals.
If an attempt is made to boil down the state of politics in America right now using the public positions stated by the two dominant parties, those summaries will lead one to infer that America is being torn between two diametrically opposed interpretations of our founding document -- the United States Constitution.
On the Republican side, the argument is basically that the Founding Fathers created a nearly perfect set of principals whose effectiveness in the intervening two hundred forty six years has been sullied only by modern generations reading into the original language intents that were never there instead of legislating new intents or explicitly amending the Constitution to allow such intents if not present in these "originalist" interpretations. If only we could "get back" to the original undistorted interpretation of a document created by slaveholders that didn't provide voting rights to women, we could straighten things out.
On the Democratic side, the argument is basically that the Founding Fathers created a nearly perfect set of principals for continually evolving to a "more perfect union" and that progress towards perfection is being slowed down by special interests corrupting the systems that allow the forces defined by the Constitution to function properly. In other words, the country didn't start in a perfect place, the country is certainly not IN a perfect place, but the systems in place SHOULD be capable of working to make progress over time if used ethically in good faith.
What if both of those assumptions are wrong? What is REALLY wrong with America right now?
Is it possible the Constitution itself contains the seeds of its demise and ours?
We already know the original Constitution (US 1.0, released in 1789) codified America's original sin -- slavery -- into our DNA by crassly allocating electoral influence to OWNERS of slaves while giving zero rights (voting, civil and human) to actual slaves. Most Americans were taught to believe the Civil War excised that bug from the operating system by defeating the South which intended to expand slavery further west and by amending the Constitution to provide full citizenship to all blacks and voting rights to black men.
What if more gene therapy in the Constitution was required beyond the Thirteenth Amendment to undo the damage caused by allowing slavery in the first place?
Article I Section 3 of the Constitution specifies the structure of the Senate and staggered terms of its members. Drafting of the Constitution began in 1787 and at that time, a majority of states allowed slavery but efforts were underway in some northern states to abolish it. Both the pro-slavery and anti-slavery participants in the drafting process saw the writing on the wall for future conflict and reached a compromise to coax hard-core slave states into joining the new nation under the revised Constitution. That compromise was the structure of the Senate.
The Senate structure gave equal legislative power to a body whose membership wasn't based on population or acreage but simply membership in the union. It also staggered terms over six years so the body as a whole would never be subjected to the risk of a wholesale changeout in a single election. The staggered terms might have been explained over time as a means for making the Senate a calmer, less reactive, more deliberative body than the House but they serve equally well to protect Senators from their voters' ability to swap them out. Pro-slavery forces viewed the structure as additional leverage that could protect what was likely to become a minority interest in near perpetuity and thus an incentive to join the new union. In a country claiming to focus on equal representation ("one man, one vote"), this structure is inherently undemocratic. While the original sin of slavery that prompted this flawed structure was corrected by the Thirteenth Amendment, the original flaw itself is still present in the core of the system, still available to be leveraged for any issue characterized by wide geographic disparities -- abortion, guns, land use rights, water rights, environmental protection, etc.
Is it possible special interests have perfected strategies for leveraging an undemocratic Senate to thwart majority supported change?
That certainly seems to be the case. And two of the special interests are the two dominant political parties in the United States. Much like giant faceless corporations that are provided legal personhood, the Democratic and Republican parties have become discrete interests in the country, representing their own interest in retaining and exercising power rather than transparently acting according to the wishes of their most recent voters. An important aspect of the "electoral physics" of an undemocratic legislative process is that many things desired by minority interests protected by such a structure don't require legislative "wins" per se, they just require the ability to BLOCK wins by the majority side of the issue.
This type of governance by minority obstruction also has unique synergies with social media technologies developed in the past fifteen to twenty years. A party only focused on stopping the other guy doesn't have to explain their own position and they certainly don't have to understand or explain the opposing position. Successful obstructionism only requires sowing enough fear and doubt in the public and applying that angst to very specific gates in the system to delay or kill legislation unfavored by the minority. As an added bonus, each win with this strategy by the minority has a secondary, cumulative benefit for the minority by sowing cynicism with voters in the majority who grow frustrated after WINNING majorities in elections yet not getting anything they wanted having "won." In 2022, do voters upset with Democrats think ANY of their pet issues had a chance of meaningful legislation related to those issues passing in a 50/50 Senate with two extremely conservative Democratic Senators (Manchin of West Virginia and Sinema of Arizona)? Do they believe they will be closer to achieving their goals with both the House and Senate controlled by Republicans who will also work to thwart changes imposed by executive order? Will the orange koolaid / benzene combination taste better by adding more benzene?
The entire world now operates in an environment where the SPEED of our communication tools has vastly exceeded our ability and willingness to FILTER that communication. The result is frankly a sewer. Mark Twain once said "a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on." It takes no energy at all to post a lie on Facebook or Twitter. It takes virtually no mental effort to READ a post on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram. If the lie fits existing cognitive biases, it will be processed and accepted, triggering the desired doubt / anger / fear. In SECONDS.
In contrast, honestly REFUTING a lie in a two-sentence tweet requires thought and careful wordsmithing by someone with expertise and time then requires readers of the lie to be willing to spend the time reading something they know they don't agree with at the outset. Mark Twain also once said "it is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled." Of course, the sarcastic irony behind all of this is that there's no proof Mark Twain said either of these things. Americans seem to have completely forgotten a key lesson from Abraham Lincoln.
WTH
