They just, you know, wanted to win elections or something

Robpos of the Daily Kos community discussed what they call a civil war in the Democratic Party between oligarchs and populists. The discussion begins with a Congressional House race in New York in which the “campaign spokesman” (there is doubt about the actual role) of one Democratic candidate bashed another Democratic candidate, saying the opponent was too far left, which would cause Democrats to lose the seat. The accusation of too far left is because the opponent supported or worked on the campaigns for Gary Peters (he’s radical?), Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Robpos then noted that the attacker was funded by various PACs that are funded by billionaires. Robpos wrote:

Since the financial crisis of 2008, which made visible, the devotion of the Democratic Party to its billionaire donor class, the billionaires, through dark money PACs and shadowy think tanks, have opened a battle for the soul of the party and sought to purge the influence of its progressive wing.

A quote from Lever News

MAGA has been trying to harness that [populist] outrage for its authoritarian agenda, much like the Tea Party did when Democrats squandered the Obama presidency by turning hope and change into more of the same. But center-left populists now have their own opportunity to channel the rage in a very different, more productive direction — into causes such as campaign finance reform, anti-monopoly policy, Medicare For All, and higher taxes on billionaires.

Robpos concluded:

Billionaires are not your friends, even if they support the Democratic Party. They have the bucks, but we have the votes if we don’t succumb to apathy, resignation and defeatism.

I long ago concluded that while Democrats aren’t (well, don’t appear to be) actively working for billionaires, they are also not actively working against them, either. What we as a country need is what Democrats are failing to do. That’s why, when not compared against Republicans, Democrats have such a low approval rating. Getting rid of the nasty guy and his authoritarianism is not enough. Even gutting the power of the current Republican Party is not enough. For our democracy to survive we must blunt the strength of the billionaires to control our politics. And that Democrats are not doing. The Supreme Court delivered another blow to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 yesterday. As I understand it, based on various news discussions, the Court attacked Section 2 that bans the use of gerrymandering to deprive racial minorities from seats in Congress. The law (and I think in an update to the law, not the original) said that if a district map appears to deprive minorities of a seat, it is illegal. The Court ruled that to challenge a map the challengers must prove the deprivation was intentional. That is exceedingly difficult to prove. By “Court” I do mean the six conservatives. The three liberals vigorously dissented. In today’s pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Stacey Abrams, writing for MSNOW:

For decades, Section 2 gave Black voters in the South and brown voters in the Southwest access to the courts to remedy harm. There was something those voters could do when, for example, state legislatures split Black neighborhoods across districts or packed Latinos into as few seats as possible to minimize their broader influence. Section 2 was not a perfect safeguard but it worked, and it instituted accountability. ... Today’s ruling on Louisiana v. Callais strikes even closer to the bone by narrowing the very mechanism communities use to fight discriminatory maps in court. These decisions have steadily built upon one another, eviscerating the protections mandated by the 15th Amendment and perhaps altering the country’s memory of what the VRA attempted to fix. More than just a law protecting voting rights, the VRA stood as a guard against abuse of power by a racial majority that had — and has — repeatedly failed to act fairly.”

Adam Serwer of The Atlantic, discussing the claim that the Court is being “race neutral.”

The Court’s decision is consonant with the philosophy, articulated by Kilpatrick in his earlier days, that the state is oppressive when it interferes with the right to discriminate, and respects liberty when it allows discrimination. And the decision fits just as well with Kilpatrick’s later spin on that philosophy: Attempts to ban racial discrimination are themselves discriminatory—against white people […] It is true that—thanks in large part to the protections that the Roberts Court is carefully dismantling—Americans experience less overt discrimination than they once did. But the obvious flaw in Alito’s logic was revealed when he defended the gerrymander as partisan and not racial by pointing out that most Black people support Democrats, “because race and politics are so intertwined.” In other words: Discriminating against Black voters is okay because they vote for Democrats. Many Democrats in the 19th century, when Black people overwhelmingly voted Republican, would have enthusiastically agreed with Alito’s assessment. But if you apply Alito’s logic to those white-supremacist Democrats, they weren’t racist either. They just, you know, wanted to win elections or something, and Black people were in the way. The fact that discriminating against Black voters would give Republicans an advantage today is not exculpatory; it only establishes a motive for discrimination.

I wrote all that before I had a chance to read an article by the Associated Press posted on Kos about the case. Yeah, I’m getting behind on my reading again after a time of carefully keeping up to date. The AP article begins:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s second majority Black congressional district in a decision that could open the door for Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats and affect the balance of power in Congress.

Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent included, “Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.” From the article:

The court did an about-face from a decision in a similar case from Alabama less than three years ago that led to a new congressional map for the state that sent two Black Democrats to Congress. The Alabama decision also prompted Louisiana lawmakers to add a second majority Black district. About a third of Louisianans are Black and they now form majorities in two of the state’s six congressional districts. Alabama has a separate appeal pending at the Supreme Court.

Emily Singer of Kos reported that Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida released a new district map that seeks to flip Congressional seats from Democrat to Republican. Though a lot of state Republicans decried Virginia’s voter recently approved redistricting plan they heaped praise on this Florida plan. Yeah, we can gerrymander, you can’t. The new map was revealed only 48 hours before it was to be voted on – no chance for public comment. And it violates the state constitution. Back in 2010 Florida voters overwhelmingly added Fair Districts standards, which also outlawed partisan gerrymandering. Communities were not to be divided for political gain. I hear it passed the legislature. Bill in Portland, Maine, in his Cheers and Jeers column for Kos included a tweet from Kimberley Johnson, who included a message from Trond Solberg:

Hi. Norwegian here. A big misconception about social democracy is that everyone makes the same money, and that you can’t get rich. But Norway has wealthy people, entrepreneurs, successful CEOs. The difference is that a janitor can afford healthcare. A teacher can afford a home. And the wealthy still live in a society that works. Social democracy doesn’t put a ceiling on wealth. It raises the floor. Follow for more glimpses into life in a social democracy, where dignity is not a privilege.

I went to Johnson’s tweet. It had a reply from Fac Americae Abire:

The complaint I kept hearing is “Why do I have to help ….” That’s one very good reason why social anything doesn’t work in US. Even “Love thy neighbour” doesn’t work.

And charlie859 included a meme:

“In America, people think social democracy is some kind of communism. They think capitalism is freedom. It’s not. It’s only freedom to exploit people.” – Oscar-nominated actor Skarsgård explains his egalitarian worldview

Bill also quoted an article from Mediaite that says Wall Street traders, the ones who described the nasty guy as TACO, have come up with another: NACHO – Not A Chance Hormuz Opens.