Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace?

Yesterday I wrote that Democrats were going to try a reconciliation maneuver to get the Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Act before the Senate. Joan McCarter of Daily Kos explained the process in more detail. Democrats will take a bill that has passed both chambers and had made a few reconciliation trips back and forth but with the two chambers still apart on a final text. In this case the Senate cannot filibuster debate of the bill. I had written that the House would gut the existing bill and replace the text with these two other bills. McCarter said that didn’t happen. The text of the original bill – a NASA funding bill – is still there. The voting rights bills have been added to it. The House passed the combined bill along party lines on Thursday morning. It now goes before the Senate for debate. I missed another detail yesterday. The Senate cannot filibuster the start of debate on the bill. The chamber can filibuster the final vote on the bill. So doing something about the filibuster – carving out an exception, demand senators actually hold the floor for the duration, or actually ending it – is still necessary. Even just debating the bill is a plus – Senators will actually declare why they are or are not voting for it. Laura Clawson of Kos discussed an opinion piece written by former President Obama for USA Today. Obama worked over each of the reasons why this legislation must pass. Otherwise we face a “slow unraveling of basic democratic institutions and electoral mechanisms.” He also noted the unraveling doesn’t just happen, it is being made to happen, and it is Republicans making it happen. So Democrats need to act. Clawson wrote:

Obama takes on the people who claim they are protecting the institution of the Senate by protecting the filibuster, and does so on two grounds. Directly, he points out that “The filibuster has no basis in the Constitution,” and that its use became routine only in recent years. Changing it does not shake the foundations on which the nation rests. But that’s where Obama makes an indirect case that anyone who says they’re protecting the institution, or the norms, is wrong to allow the filibuster to get in the way of passing voting rights legislation: because democracy itself is America’s most important institution. Allowing the filibuster to unravel basic democratic institutions is far more harmful, he argues, than creating another exception to its dominance of the Senate.

As part of the article Obama wrote:

At consequential moments in history, they present a choice: Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?

So, you wayward Democrats, are you going to restrict gerrymandering or will you be complicit in the dismantling of Democracy? A few days ago Biden gave an impassioned speech on voting rights. Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported on Moscow Mitch’s response. He accused Biden’s speech of being “incoherent, incorrect and beneath his office.” It was “deliberately divisive” and “poured a giant can of gasoline on the fire” of political warfare. Mitch promised to make the Senate the biggest hellscape in living memory. Eleveld wrote:

Guess what, folks—this is exactly the debate Democrats want to be having heading into the midterms: Which party is really standing up for American democracy and which party is trying to tear it down?

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki started that debate by lamenting that Mitch has changed his position on voting rights – he used to be for them. And Democrats helpfully had a video already prepared that shows a series of Mitch’s past statements in praise of voting rights. Walter Einenkel of Kos discussed Mitch’s changing position on the filibuster and has videos of previous statements going back to 2005. Republicans have their own line of attack. Kelsey Snell of NPR discussed it. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida tried it out. He is working to redefine the Big Lie as Democrats saying Republican election reform is racist voter suppression. Schumer responded that this idea, saying Mitch’s rant is the definition of gaslighting. McCarter reported on the remarks Sen. Kyrsten Sinema gave on the Senate floor yesterday. Wrote McCarter:

Sinema’s floor remarks were a stab in the back to President Joe Biden (and all her Democratic colleagues) moments before Biden was scheduled to meet with her. She insisted that she really does support the Freedom to Vote and John Lewis Voting Rights bills, but that they “treat the symptoms of the disease, but they do not fully address the diseases and while I continue to support these bills, I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division affecting our country.” Meaning she would not help Republicans break the filibuster in order to pass these bills she supports. Because both sides. Literally. She both-sides-ed Jan. 6 and the Big Lie. She doubled down on that, literally blaming Democratic leadership for not working harder to get Republicans to work with them. “I wish there had been a more serious effort on the part of Democratic Party lines to sit down with the other party and genuinely discuss how to reforge common ground on these issues,” she said. Never mind that the Freedom to Vote Act was entirely rewritten by Joe Manchin to get Republicans on board and every single one of them refused. And when Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to bring the bill to the floor, Republicans filibustered the motion to proceed to it—they didn’t even allow the Senate to debate it. She might as well have announced her defection to the Republicans in that speech, because in practicality that’s what she did. She’s supporting Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s veto of these bills and everything else in Biden’s legislative agenda, essentially. She’s trying to call it principle about the sanctity of the filibuster, but she had no problem voting just last month to break the filibuster to raise the debt ceiling. Which makes her pretty much a Republican. She’s got the lying and the trolling down pat.

Sigh. The whole process will be delayed because a couple of the Democrat senators are out with COVID. Hunter of Kos discussed what big corporations are saying and doing as voting rights bills come up for a vote. A year ago many companies decided siding with insurrectionists was not a good corporate look and stopped donating. Then Republicans threatened them (essentially saying if you stop bribing us we’ll stop working for you) and they began to donate again. Several companies cam out in support of voting rights. That’s good. But passing voting rights depends on filibuster reform. Are these companies also willing to say the Senate needs to reform the filibuster? Judd Legum asked 100 companies. Two gave their support. The rest evaded or didn’t respond. Are these companies avoiding making any sort of statement that might displease the white nationalist movement that could overtake the US government? The nasty guy has kept control of the Republican party by saying keep your mouth shut or you will be targeted. It works because most members of the party are gutless cowards. If even a small contingent condemned the nasty guy propaganda he would lose his power. In the same way if several companies called out these anti-democracy moves they could stop them. But it seems they only want a bit of shine on their image and don’t really care about democracy. Leah McElrath tweeted that 1,110 former workers of the Department of Justice sighed a letter urging faster action to bring accountability to higher-level actors of the insurrection. This is an unprecedented move. McElrath included a link to a report about the letter at Medium. Don Winslow tweeted the reason for urging faster action:

More time is def the answer: 1. Stormy Daniels 5 years ago =no charges. Statute out. 2. Comey/Obstruction: 4.5 years ago (no charges) 3. SDNY 3_+ years (no charges) 4. Mueller 2.5 years ago (no charges to Trump/family) 5. NY AG 2+ years (no charges) 6. NY DA 2+ year (no charges)

Ryan Burge tweeted statistics about religious affiliation by generation. He also included a chart.

71% of the Silent Generation is Protestant or Catholic. 63% of Boomers 53% of Gen X 42% of Millennials 37% of Gen Z 18% of the Silent Generation are nones. 25% of Boomers 35% of Gen X 43% of Millennials 45% of Gen Z There are clearly more nones in Gen Z than Cath/Prot.

Dr. Tara Smith, professor of infectious disease epidemiologist, wrote about her experience with free speech on social media:

I see some folks dismayed that Twitter banned MTG today, pushing the idea that the answer to bad speech isn't removal from the platform, but instead more "good speech" to counter it. I wish that was true and that it worked that way. But it doesn't.

She had a blog discussing HIV. It attracted HIV deniers and their comments. She didn’t ban them (and may not have had that option at the time) so had to spend a lot of time countering their bogus claims.

Basically, SM companies have the choice I did when my blog was active and infested with HIV deniers--argue fruitlessly, or ban. As an academic, I wish everyone were rational and we could discuss these topics with a level head & have the facts win out in the end. But that's exactly the problem with mis/disinformation. It's not a level playing field and never has been. Facts & rational discussion can help (I still do it!) but for many, it's an emotion-driven reaction that misinformation proponents take advantage of. And so unfortunately, one of the only ways to keep it from spreading is to kick out those doing so. Make your place less hospitable to those spreading it, or risk those who thrive on misinformation making themselves comfy & taking over.