I think Democrats should do whatever it takes to block Jordan from the Speakership. Having Jordan as Speaker will almost certainly lead to the failure of next year’s Presidential elections.
But maybe that’s just what the US is now, and what it earned by being so complacent. The government you elect is the government you deserve.
#JimJordan #SpeakerOfTheHouse #maga #January6
——
Jim Jordan takes a speaker vote to the House floor. Can he lock down the votes? - Vox https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/10/17/23919090/jim-jordan-house-speaker-vote-trump-ally-january-6-wrestling-scandal
@Dogzilla but what you're suggesting might guarantee a failure of the election.
@volkris We've allowed ourselves to become so divided that we've made ourselves vulnerable to a failed election. The system has worked reasonably reliably for a while. In the past 25 years, it's suddenly started to show cracks, but we've ignored them. That's why we're in this state now.
If we get through the next 18 months, we *really* need to make some changes to how we organize our government and society. There's lots of options. I hope we make good choices.
@Dogzilla but when you say you think Democrats should do whatever it takes to block Jordan from Speakership, realize that you're promoting exactly that division.
A Jordan Speakership that reopens Congress could be part of coming together and healing those divisions, but not so long as Democrats maintain their partisan position that Congress be closed if opening means working with others.
@volkris Are you familiar with who Jim Jordan is? Specifically his history in the house, his interactions with other house members, his involvement with Jan 6, and the testimony around him from Jan 6 committee witnesses? Or even his actions during this latest speakership fight?
Look into that and let me know if you still feel the same.
My opinion remains that supporting Jordan in the name of “healing divisions” is like putting chickens and weasels in the same barn to “heal divisions”
@Dogzilla my point is not that Jordan is in any way a good person.
It's that you are promoting division, for better or worse, by saying Democrats need to oppose him, whatever it takes.
You might even conclude that the division is better than having Jordan as Speaker. That's fair! But recognize that you're promoting division because you believe it to be better than the alternative.
Personally, I think it's a bad idea to keep our democratic institution shut down like this, but if you believe the alternative is worse, again, that's fair.
@volkris I see what you’re saying. It’s kind of like defending someone’s right to say they’re going to throw you in a wood chipper because you want to protect their first amendment rights. I’ll point out that no rights are absolute - society places limits on all rights.
I see Jordan as an existential threat to American democracy, and yes - believe he should be opposed at all costs. I think whatever Republicans still respect democracy should join with Democrats in this project.
@Dogzilla the disagreement I have is that whether Jordan is an existential threat to democracy or not, you're talking about actually undermining democracy to oppose him, and I wouldn't make that trade.
It's avoiding the possibility of harm by guaranteeing the harm, burning the village to save it.
Democratic processes might select Jordan. So you're bringing up the subversion of democracy because Jordan MIGHT subvert democracy, and I'd rather leave open the possibility that he might not.
(And that's all assuming the Democrats maintain their strategy that puts this all on the table in the first place)
@volkris What exactly did you see in your head when you read my original post? What undemocratic thing did you think I was advocating?
Was your takeaway that I was calling on Democrats to pull a Jan 6 type of thing or what?
@Dogzilla so that is what I thought you were saying, you are advocating for shutting down the democratic institution for the sake of not having Jordan as speaker.
You are saying to forget democracy because you're afraid of who might get elected by the democratic process.
And yes, not only do they have that mechanism but we see in the voting rolls that they used it, but that's a different issue, that's a matter of procedure separate from your advocacy of anti-democratic action for the sake of blocking this politician you don't like.
@volkris I don’t believe that leveraging parliamentary procedures to block someone who was a conspirator in a plot to overthrow the democratically elected government from being second in line to run that government is “destroying democracy”. I honestly don’t see how anyone could make that connection.
We may have to just accept we see this *very* differently
@Dogzilla I think it's really straightforward, but you're getting caught up in your own opinions so you're missing the forest for the trees.
If X was going to be elected by a democratic process, but you block X from being elected, that necessarily undermines the democratic process.
You can talk all day about X, fill in the blank for who X is, go through all your problems with X, talk about their mother, review their college transcripts, throw mud on their great, great grandfather, bash their choice in underwear brand... but at the end of the day all of that is distraction from the paragraph I wrote above.
I don't like Jim Jordan and I hope he doesn't become Speaker. I wish Democrats would end their campaign that even makes that likely.
But at the end of the day, if X is elected, well that's democracy for you, and we need to stop reelecting the jerks who settled on him.
@volkris Well, the house Dems don’t actually have any mechanism by which to shut down Congress - that’s purely a function of the majority party - but if they had one, I would advocate for its use in blocking Jordan.
But that would still be pretty far from destroying American democracy. That would be playing hardball using parliamentary procedure (cf: Mitch McConnell)