On Monday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use racial profiling in its militarized immigration raids across Los Angeles, halting an injunction that had barred officers from targeting Latinos based on ethnicity. The court did not explain the reason for its shadow docket order, which appeared to split 6–3 along ideological lines. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision was “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees,” opening the door to violent persecution of Latinos—including American citizens—by “masked agents with guns.” The majority did not respond to this extraordinary charge, perhaps because it is so obviously true.
I’m entirely in agreement there. I’m not optimistic enough to say “half” but I think it would be enough. The suburban NIMBY types are the most difficult to reach. Those are the ones who just want to return to the neo-liberal consensus. They are just as hateful and deluded as the white supremacists, and even more bigoted in their own way.
Half may be too high. At least in those that would be pulled over right away with a populist alternative Reform Party. A lot of these True Believers, which I do believe are about half of the Republican electorate, that believe more than not of the bullshit, can be pulled, look at Marjorie Taylor green and her base. She opposed the war with iran, she called out and opposes the genocide in palestine, she is opposed to go engineering such as spring sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to block the Sun, and she is for releasing all of the Epstein documents. As delusional as they are, with a better alternative they would support something other than what they do now.
But the cynical ones, which includes a lot of the business oriented republicans, comfortable people making good money that want to fuck the poor just out of General principle and continue to increase their lot would not support that reform alternative unless it was clear they were going to win which would not be when it would be most needed, the first time around.
A lot of religious people would support a popular reform but so many are so misguided by their religious leaders they will not. I would not Hazard a percentage guess. Negligible amounts of evangelicals and Calvinists, a significant number of Catholics would support it but the Nationwide Catholic leadership is pretty hard right the pope notwithstanding.
The methodists and others may even support it in the majority.
But with current leadership and strategies we will never find out. It was hard enough to win a more honest election, now we need a more commanding majority to overcome all of the election rigging they will be doing on every level, as well as controlling at least one house of Congress so they cannot vote their guy in any way even if they cannot rig enough states to take it outright.
Also we need a very muscular approach to fighting election rigging and answering it. Meekly asking the courts is not enough. Voters decide elections, not courts. Should be the rallying cry on that.
I think we’re largely in agreement. As for a reform party, I think building on the DSA is the way to go. The DSA just needs to start organizing more on a national level instead of operating in geographic silos.
I’m seeing a lot of Democratic boomer types finally start waking up to how weak and ineffective Democratic leadership is. I think they are vulnerable to takeover, but doing it fast enough doesn’t seem likely. We really need a Mamdani blowout.
What we need is a sort of Federated true populism. While my beliefs line up more with the progressive DSA type populists, they are not right for every District especially given how they are LED to oppose them. We need populism across the country tailored to District cooperating together on what they agree on to reach a critical mass to just take the Democratic Party and force the rest into going with the program. Once they see which way the political winds are blowing they will fall in line as well.
Populists opposing allowing the rich to ass fuck working people without their consent. And dishonoring the bill of rights, etc. With a big emphasis on those financial interests screwing us being brought to heal one way or the other. If they can legally charge us more than everybody else for drugs, we will hit them for other crimes that they commit type of thing. Call them out by name.
We need candidates tailored to their districts in other words in general agreement on the need for reform. With decent candidates and even a modest number of people in that District organized for them along with a national Federated Forum where we could cooperate on what we agree on, we could unseat perhaps the majority of these establishment Democrats and the Republicans in the general election.