Time For Action: Comment By Thursday (7/2) Against Mail-In Voting Restrictions

 

<"Hear me, O Lord, as I continue my never-ending campaign of bullying all those who dare to defy me..." (aclu.org)>

<i.>

Continuing our latest postings, here is another "Time For Action," to prevent the Bully-In-Chief from imposing himself on the rest of us. This time, the issue concerns the so-called executive order, signed last March, that attempts to strong-arm states from allowing absentee or mail-in voting -- unless they provide the Trump regime with lists of eligible voters.

There's lots of concerning ideas buried within that proposal, starting with the obvious one -- states run elections, according to the Constitution, which doesn't give the President any specific powers over them. That's before we get other pressing little issues, including the misuse of the U.S. Postal Service for political purposes, and the notion of making lists -- hmm, Trump's always made no bones about his desire for unlimited power. Why would he want to make mile-long lists of people?

Well...perhaps I can hazard a guess. Making lists and keeping tabs is a time-honored reflex of autocracies large and small, and whatever their stated purpose, anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows this much -- that just can't be good, right? Certainly not for those on the receiving end.

The good news is that federal judges are consistently rejecting the Trump regime's legal and administrative strong-arming. And, wonder of wonders, the US Supreme Court landed 5-4 against Trump's attempt to overturn a five-day grace period for mail-in ballots in Mississippi, of all places (see links below). Will wonders never cease?

At any rate, the critical point here is the information contained below, posted by Indivisible. We can weigh in against the idea, via email, for which the deadline is 5 p.m. Thursday, July 2. Here are the details:

"The Trump administration is trying to make it more difficult to vote by limiting access to mail-in ballots.

"We have until Thursday, July 2, at 5 p.m., to push back by submitting comments against the restrictions.

"We’re sharing more details on the proposed rules and guidelines for submitting comments in opposition below — we hope you’ll join us in making it clear that Michiganders are ready to defend the right to vote!

"Trump issued an Executive Order March 31 2026 to eliminate mail in and absentee ballots for federal elections nationwide in states that do not provide the federal government their voting rolls.

"HOW? He would do this by prohibiting the USPS from mailing ballots to any person in any state that is not on his federally created voter enrollment list. In fact, The USPS has begun a rules process to do this and is seeking comments by 5pm July 2, 2026 before implementing.

"This, of course, is illegal. The constitution clearly gives states the power to regulate elections. While this will most likely be struck down by multiple courts, the matter may not work through the judicial system until after the November election. That could mean this election could take place without absentee mail in ballots.

"Eliminating absentee and mail voting will most certainly suppress the vote, cause chaos, and cast doubt on election integrity. The good news is that we still have time to oppose this rule -- until July 2 -- by making your voice heard to the USPS Federal registry (PCFederalRegister@usps.gov).

"What should you do?

"ASAP: draft an email to PCFederalRegister@usps.gov, enter on subject line MAIL BALLOTS, and write your comments of opposition. These do not need to be lengthy...The goal is VOLUME of comments, as your voice will be considered by the courts and USPS in their decision. If this rule is allowed to go through it will have a profound effect on turnout and outcomes.

"We can stop this now. This matter is urgent.

"Please share with everyone you know on all media formats."

<ii.>

There you have it, then. I eliminated the language concerning "talking points below," because I couldn't find any evidence of them. However, we trust that, via the magic of the Internet, you can do sufficient finger-walking research to unearth them. Or find any number of news articles, perhaps, to support whatever comments you plan to make. Joyce Vance also offers an in-depth deep dive on her Substack (see link below), for those who want the nitty-gritty detail.

As I've mentioned, there ample reasons to oppose this Trumpist power grab -- pulled like a magician does with his scarves, from a seemingly bottomless black bag of bile, ill will, and aggrievement. Where today's Supreme Court outcome takes us, time will tell. Trump has ramped up calls to pass his so-called SAVE Act -- whose key language ties voting rights to citizenship -- though even his most craven Senate enablers doubt it can pass before the November midterm elections.

Nor do they seem inclined to dumping the filibuster, so they can pass SAVE by a hyper-slim majority, as Trump demands -- since one day, that shoe will go on the other foot, as several longtime Senate veterans on their side have already pointed out. And that shoe may drop in favor of Washington, DC statehood, Medicare For All, or any number of standard issue far-right nightmares. 

The flipside of this debate may well mean the return of Trump's masked paramilitary army to the polls, as allies like Steve Bannon have suggested. Or perhaps they'll be deputized to make balloting as physically draining as possible -- as we saw in Stacey Abrams' unsuccessful 2018 bid for Georgia governor, where six-hour waits were commonplace. It goes without saying that those same expectations may hold true again (as in, don't put anything past them).

That being said, I see little point in endless speculating about what "Trump might do," as it's fairly obvious he'll do his best to disrupt the proceedings -- since he may end up losing both houses of Congress, amid ongoing voter rage against his' abuses of power, economic mismanagement, and a war in Iran that seems no closer to ending than it did in February, when he and his Israeli cohort, Benjamin Netanyahu, unleashed it.

If there's one thing Trump understands well, beyond the power of money and celebrity, it's that rage crosses every possible party line. Poll after poll shows him underwater with all the key groups who restored him to power in 2024 -- young Black and Latino voters, independents, suburban women -- and, by all accounts, have had more than enough.

Of course, the hardline MAGA base remains solidly in his camp, a phenomenon powered by groups like evangelicals (of whom 58 percent voice support for "most" or "all of his policies," the Pew Center reported in January). However, as Republicans have seen -- notably, in the 2022 midterms, when the oft-predicted Red Wave fizzled to a Red Ripple - it's tough to win elections solely by turning out those who already agree with you. 

Time enough...

<iii.>

This is the scenario that keeps Trump's inner circle awake at nights. Having alienated most of those who gave him another look is not a good look, so to speak, at the political box office. 

There's also the ironclad rule that second-term Presidents suffer major losses in midterm elections -- the so-called "six-year itch" that political scientists have documented, when supporters and party officials begin looking past the incumbent, toward their own futures (and their own survival, in cases like the second Trump term, where chaos is the norm).

Major examples of the "itch" include LBJ's epic 1966 wipeout, as he struggled with the Vietnam War (47 House, and three Senate seats, lost); Gerald Ford, in 1974, fresh from the Watergate scandal that forced his boss, Richard Nixon, to resign (48 House, eight Senate seats); George W. Bush, coming off his own epic wars (Afghanistan, Iran), in 2006 (30 House, six Senate seats); and Barack Obama, in 2014, grappling with Republican opposition against the Affordable Care Act (13 House, nine Senate seats).

For Trump, the stakes are certainly as existential as an outlier result -- in which he somehow bucks the trend by gaining seats, or fends off a total wipeout -- might seem to his opposition. If he loses both houses, it essentially marks the end of his maximalist Presidency -- at least, as he's known and understood it.

One of the more obvious consequences will be a tidal wave of Democrat-led hearings, investigations, and various other maneuvers -- all aimed at holding him accountable, somehow, or even launching a third impeachment attempt against him. Or, if that looks unfeasible, they might settle for any number of his "junk drawer" Cabinet secretaries, or the more extreme Supreme Court Justices. The possibilities are endless.

For that six-year itch...

As several leading Democratic Senators have noted, the quality of Trump's nominees will "have to go up immediately"; anyone fitting the previous pattern that has been the norm (freaks, plutocrats, suckups) would find their confirmation prospects looking decidedly dicey.

Even an emboldened Democratic majority holding only one house of Congress could make the remainder of Trump's restoration miserable. At a minimum, it would halt implementation of further Project 2025 items, and force Republicans to rethink what they can pull over, legislative-wise. The old calculus of razor-thin House votes and Senate tiebreakers would no longer apply, forcing new political calculations.

While researching this post, I came across an excerpt from the aptly-titled Second Term Blues: How George W. Bush Has Governed (2007), by John C. Fortier, and Norman Ornstein. Obviously, it's dated now, but the introduction -- excerpted on the Brookings Institution's website -- holds plenty of relevant kernels for today's audience, like this one: "With the exception of FDR, every second-term president since the Civil War has faced a Congress with at least one chamber controlled by the other party. In a second term, let the investigations begin."

And the opening statement, though more general in tone, seems especially relevant nowadays, doesn't it: "Second terms have not been good to American presidents. They often are characterized by hubris, burnout, a paucity of new or bold ideas and are plagued by scandal, party infighting, lack of legislative success, and loss of seats in the midterm election."

... to kick in?

Undoubtedly, Trump hasn't read the book, but if his aides have come across it, I'm sure those quotes loom large in their minds -- and may well inspire some type of exaggerated response from their Dear Leader.

What will it look like? Time will tell, soon enough. All we can do is gear up for the long, hard pull ahead -- the work that must be done, to reclaim our democracy from Trump's movement, and the tech bros who continue to coddle it. Taking every opportunity is only the first step, but that's how it begins.

If the past teaches anything, it's to grab your chances while you can, and make the most of them. After all... Look at how it worked out for our current Commander-in-Chief. --The Reckoner

Links To Go: Hurry, Hurry (Get Your Ballots Early:
Beat The Voter Suppression Rush)

Civil Discourse With Joyce Vance:
The Executive Order To Restrict Vote By Mail:
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/the-executive-order-to-restrict-vote

NPR: A Federal Judge In Boston 

Blocks Key Parts Of Trump's Order...:
https://www.npr.org/2026/06/25/nx-s1-5844576/trump-mail-in-voting-order

NPR: The Supreme Court Upholds

Grace Periods For Mail-In Ballots:
https://www.npr.org/2026/06/29/nx-s1-5815312/supreme-court-mail-ballot-grace-period-ruling

The Brookings Institution:
Second Term Blues (Excerpt):
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/secondtermblues_chapter.pdf

Voter Suppression Update 101: Ten Tipping Points That Throttled Our Democracy

 

"Well, ain't we 

a pair, raggedy man?"

So here we are, on the eve of the debate, over the biggest voting rights overhaul in decades (hence, the above quote, as the "drive it home" line, from Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome). For those who haven't tuned in, I'm referring to the S1: For The People Act, that aims to safeguard voting rights, strengthen dark money and lobbying disclosures, and ban gerrymandering (redrawing political boundaries to unfairly favor one party over another). I'm not rehashing that ground here, so see the links below for a comprehensive overview of what the law actually contains.

For The People's sprawling nature has drawn criticism in some quarters, such as a provision that grants statehood to Washington, D.C., for instance. Maybe so, but I'm fine with it, conceptually.  It's the kind of big and bold legislation we needed decades ago, and not surprisingly, what our increasingly sclerotic system seems perfectly poised to strangle, mainly through the Republicans' preferred legislative bludgeon -- the filibuster. 

You know something bizarre is happening when one person (Nominally Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, Republican Mitch McConnell) can exercise such an outsized effect on our nation's course through the mere tactic of preventing debate on this bill, or that one, no matter how badly needed it is, nor how well it might poll. To me, the filibuster is the perfect expression of the oft-attributed Cornelius Vanderbilt quote, "The public be damned."

Whatever happens to the law today, I can confidently draw three inferences. First, the issue won't disappear. In terms of our democratic status, it's still five minutes to midnight, because we're seeing one party (The Republicans) morphing into a violent, authoritarian personality cult that's washed its hands of the need to uphold democratic norms.

Second, if S1 does fail, it will motivate those who still care about our democratic ideals to redouble their efforts to protect them. To those who shrug off such issues, I would only ask: have we really come this far down, after 250 years, to join the likes of Hungary, Poland and Turkey, whose duly elected repressors are busily turning themselves into dystopian hellscapes? Do we really deserve to sink so low, to concede such things without a fight?

Third, if nothing else, the debate about S1, and how best to protect voting rights, has jump-started a useful conversation about the less useful aspects of our system, and the history that's brought us to this pass. 

We didn't get here overnight, and the warning bells rang loud and clear, all along. We either didn't hear them, or preferred not to think how much they were clandging off the hook. In that spirit, I offer this list, to remind us of the moral: take care, and take heed, and pay attention to what's going on. To do any less is to continue sleepwalking straight to disaster. 

<"Be Reasonable..."
The Reckoner>

<The Ten Tipping Points: Pt. I>

1. Bush v. Gore (2000).  Staring down a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that shuts down recounts in Florida, the decisive state in the Presidential election, Democratic nominee Al Gore concedes "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy" (12/13/00). Republicans celebrate the benefits of a closely divided high court that works to their advantage. They also learn, when push comes to shove, that their rivals won't push back. 

2. Georgia passes the first voter ID photo requirement (2005). Governor Sonny Perdue, who'll parlay his self-dealing skills to serve as Agriculture Secretary in the Trump administration, signs the nation's first law that ties producing a photo ID to casting your ballot. The law reduces acceptable ID formats from 17 to six, all requiring a photo (such as a driver's license or passport). As the decades roll on, Republicans will increasingly weaponize such requirements, which critics see aimed at suppressing the votes of elderly, minorities, and people with disabilities.

3. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). The Supreme Court holds, 5-4, that independent campaign spending limits on billionaires, corporations and political action committees violate free speech rights. The ruling effectively opens the floodgates for dark money to buy elections, netting an estimated electoral advantage of four to 10 percentage points for Republicans in statehouse races alone, according to several independent studies. Critics like Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson blast the outcome as "the worst decision since the Dred Scott case." Senator Olympia Snowe isn't far behind (R-ME), saying the ruling "does a terrible disservice to our country."

4. Project REDMAP (2010). The Republican Party spends $30 million to tighten its national and statewide grip on redistricting, with special emphasis on flipping Democratic majorities in swing states (Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin). "Packing," or overcrowding safe Democratic districts with disproportionate amounts of minority voters, becomes the preferred method.

The tactic allows allow Republicans to control the U.S. House of Representatives by a 33-seat margin from 1995 to 2006, despite winning 1.4 million fewer votes nationally than Democrats. A wave of Democratic losses in the 2010 Congressional midterms further aggravates the situation at the state level, where Republicans will eventually control 26 delegations. Like many GOP maneuvers, REDMAP proceeds in plain sight, with little or no effort made to counter it.

5. Shelby County v. Holder (2013). In yet another 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court strikes down the US Voting Rights Act's preclearance rule, which required local and state authorities to get federal approval for any significant changes in election laws or districts. (The title of the case refers to the parties involved, Shelby County, AL, and then-US Attorney General Eric Holder).

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts asserts that preclearance is no longer needed, because the historical record no longer "shows anything approaching the 'pervasive,' 'flagrant,' 'widespread,' and 'rampant' discrimination that faced Congress in 1965," when it passed the Voting Rights Act, he argues. 

Critics see this reasoning as tantamount to suggesting that preclearance no longer applies, because racism no longer flourishes. Whatever the intent of Roberts's rhetoric, local and state election authorities can now change rules and conditions -- like polling place hours and locations -- as they see fit, often to pure partisan advantage, as seen in the Georgia gubernatorial race of 2018, for instance.

<"...Demand The Impossible":
The Reckoner>

<The Ten Tipping Points, Pt. II>

6. Republican domination of federal court appointments (2014-2020). On becoming Senate Majority Leader in 2014, McConnell focuses on appointing as many federal judges as possible, to the point of shortening breaks, and pushing through nominations after Trump's 2020 electoral defeat, to accomplish the goal. His success is most vividly felt at the Supreme Court level, where Trump appoints three justices (Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorusch, Brett Kavanaugh) during his presidency (2016-2020).

Less visible and less noted is the impact on other federal courts. By time he departs the Oval Office, Trump ends up naming 226 federal judges, including 30 percent of the nation's 13 circuit courts, and a quarter of its 94 district courts, amid vehement protests about the various nominees' ethical conflicts, lack of trial experience, and zealousness to the Republican cause. Like most Trump appointees, they're not a terribly diverse group (76 percent white, 84 percent male). In any case, the impact leaves Democrats on the defensive, as they've been for much of the past 30 years.

7. The aging of America's political class. The growing race, gender and sexuality diversity of Congress isn't making itself felt in one other crucial demographic -- age. The average incoming Congressman and Senator are now 58 and 64 years, respectively, figures show, with Baby Boomers making up roughly 70 percent of both bodies (and just 21 percent of the US population). 

In a further ironic twist, the 2020 election saw Republicans add more new Millennial and Generation X members (28) to the House than Democrats (10). The result is a gerontocracy dominated by people who'll likely never face the consequences of whatever legislation they pass, leaving Millennials, the most educated generation in history, with few immediate or obvious ways of pursuing policy goals like student loan debt relief.

8. Abuse of the filibuster. Most commonly associated with killing civil rights legislation, the continuing escalation of filibusters -- and cloture motions needed to cut them off -- has escalated to mind-boggling levels. Between 1917 and 1970, there were less than 60 cloture votes overall, rising to 53 of them per year from 2000 to 2018, and peaking with 218 in 2013-14, according to the Center for American Progress. 

As a result, the Senate has become one of the world's least representative bodies, especially if a 60-vote supermajority is required for even routine matters like appropriation or appointment items. One snapshot can be seen from the 117th Congress (2017-18), which saw 168 cloture votes, with only 52 bills actually passing.

9. The January 6th GOP-led insurrection, and failure to fully account for it. The storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021 represented outgoing President Trump's last, desperate attempt to overturn his electoral loss to Democrat Joe Biden. With cries of "stop the steal" from Trump's base ringing in their ears, Republicans have worked hard to consign the insurrection into the proverbial memory hole, as demonstrated by their successful recent filibuster against the creation of a joint commission to investigate it. 

Six months after the attack, as Democrats strive to marshal some kind of alternative investigative process, Americans await answers to many crucial questions, such as how the insurrectionists obtained such detailed knowledge of the Capitol building's physical layout. On a more ominous level, the actions of Trump and his supporters broke decisively with the long-standing American concept of the loser peacefully yielding power to the winner. Without a full accounting of the events involved, and an appropriate response to whatever facts they reveal, the door remains open for a future nominee with a populist authoritarian bent to try repeating the trick.

10. The Republicans' national war against voting rights. As of May 14, legislators have introduced 389 bills in 48 states that restrict voting in various ways, the Brennan Center reports. Twenty-two have already been enacted, while 61 were moving through committee hearings, or passed at least one chamber. 

The measures range from drastic limitations on absentee or mail-in balloting, to provisions that would allow states to replace election officials who don't comply with their wishes, as we've seen in Arizona, whose legislature passed a bill revoking Presidential election results. In other cases, Trump supporters are running for Secretary of State positions  in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada  that would them to control the outcomes of elections, paving the way for a far more toxic repeat of what happened in 2020.

History reminds us that a system cannot stand such constant stresses, without a determined and decisive response to tamp them down. And that brings me back where I started. Here we are, and here we stand, as the For The People Act either gets an impassioned debate, or a one-way ticket to "Grim Reaper" McConnell's legislative graveyard. 

Will the players involved actually meet the moment, or hit the snooze button on their clock radio, roll over, and drift back to sleep? We'll know soon enough, I guess. --The Reckoner

Links To Go (Hurry, Hurry,
Before Democracy Evaporates For Good)

Brennan Center For Justice:
Annotated Guide To For The People Act 2021:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/annotated-guide-people-act-2021

Brennan Center For Justice:
The For The People Act: Get The Facts:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/people-act-separating-fact-fiction?ms=gad_for%20the%20people%20act_522026824737_8626214133_126275776310&gclid=Cj0KCQjwlMaGBhD3ARIsAPvWd6i87KgTvhrivg-vg2SvGu4nZRGRythjz-n-Qn5vzMcYpFRmX5vRpowaAtdjEALw_wcB

NPR: White House Says Democrats
Might Revisit Filibuster Rules 
If Voting Rights Bill Fails:
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/21/1008872664/democrats-filibuster-voting-rights-bill

The Center For American Progress:
The Impact Of The Filibuster On Federal Policymaking:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2019/12/05/478199/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/?_ga=2.107948034.1486397242.1624358765-913345892.1624358765

Gleichschaltung, GOP Style: The Death Of Democracy Starts Here

 

<Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda,
Gauleiter of Berlin, Portrait: 1942>

<Bundesarchiv: Picture #183-1989-0821-502>

Gleichschaltung (noun):
The standardization of

political, economic and social 

institutions, as carried out 

in authoritarian states. 

<i.>

Eighty-eight years today, on May 2, 1933, the end for organized labor came swiftly in Nazi Germany, as the brutal paramilitary muscle of the SA (Sturmabteiling), and SS (Schutzstaffel) rampaged through the offices of the General German Trade Union Federation, or Allgemeiner Deutsche Gewerkschaftsbund (ADGA). 

With additional reinforcement from the Nationalist Socialist Factory Cell Organization (a sort of Nazified alternative union), SA and SS storm troopers occupied ADGA member offices and properties, seized assets and documents, and dragged its officers into the "protective custody" that many would not escape. Those who dared to fought back were simply killed, a fate that befell four union officers in Duisburg, for instance.

Ironically, ADGA had been meeting with counterparts from Christian and liberal organizations, hoping to hammer out a merger that would shore up its rapidly eroding strength and relevance against the growing power of the Nazi state. To that end, ADGA had begun distancing itself from the Nazis' chief remaining opponents, the Social Democrats. ADGA's leader, Theodor Leipart, pledged his organization's neutrality, and its 52 member unions' readiness "to put themselves in service to the new state."

The government further lulled Leipart and his fellow unionists into complacency by declaring May Day, the traditional leftist celebration of labor, as a holiday. In typical Nazi fashion, it had been celebrated with a massive rally, where Germany's newly-minted dictator, Adolf Hitler, told the 100,000 in attendance: "You will see how untrue and unjust is the statement that the revolution is directed against the German workers. On the contrary!" Germany's Fuehrer had his black humor down to a fine art.

Craven and desperate as this collaboration undoubtedly was, it didn't save ADGA from being dissolved, and the slapping of a total ban on all such organizations -- along with collective bargaining, and strikes. (Authorities briefly detained Leipart, but allowed him to return to his Berlin home, mainly due to ill health, and his wife's intervention. He lost his pension, but survived the war, dying at 79 in 1947.)

A year later, the government created its own alternative, the German Labor Front, that every worker had to join. In February 1935, came the "work book," which tracked job skills and performance. No worker could be hired without it, because bosses had to sign off on any departures from a previous job. Finally, in 1938, the Nazi state decreed it would draft citizens for compulsory labor, at whatever job it wished to assign them. Workers, like everyone and everything else in the Third Reich, had now become an asset that solely belonged to the state.

<David Horsey, LA Times:

http://www.ih8trump.org/trump-triumphant/>

<ii.>

The destruction of the unions is often cited as a classic example of Gleichschaltung, which is variously translated as "bringing into line," "coordination," or "synchronization," among other variations. One of the best summaries comes from historians Robert Michael and Karin Doerr, who label it: "Consolidation. All of the German Volk’s social, political, and cultural organizations to be controlled and run according to Nazi ideology and policy. All opposition to be eliminated."

The legal framework for Gleichschaltung, of course, stemmed from the abrupt suspension of civil liberties on February 27, 1933, and the passage of the Enabling Act, on March 6, an all-encompassing initiative that allowed Hitler to dream up whatever laws he wished, without those pesky Reichstag parliamentarians getting in his way. 

Though the notorious Reichstag fire of February 27 is widely considered the tipping point for Gleichschatung, I'd add the clunkily-titled Law for the Restoration of a Professional Civil Service, as an equally significant benchmark. Passed on April 7, 1933, the measure allowed federal and state authorities to remove Jews and Communists from professions like law, medicine and teaching -- as well as anyone not showing sufficient enthusiasm for the new regime's desired way of thinking. 

Other significant moments came with the abolition of all political entities, except the Nazi Party (July 14, 1933), and the Law Concerning the Reconstruction of the Reich (January 30, 1934), that essentially abolished the state governments, and handed their powers off to the central government, in Berlin. Six months later, Hitler consolidated his power through a series of murderous purges (The Night of the Long Knives). 

In reality, the guardrails that characterize a functioning democracy were a faint memory, leaving the Fuehrer free to act as he pleased -- even if he had to tread carefully, at first, against his last remaining rival (SA leader Ernst Röhm), before unleashing the full fury of the Nazi state, as he did on June 30, 1934. 

Debate persists to this day how many died with Röhm. The Nazi government only acknowledged 85 murders. The White Book of the Purge (1934), published by German emigres in Paris, claimed 401 victims, naming 116 in particular. Still other sources put the total much higher, at up to 1,000 victims.  

Despite these events, several local prosecutors tried to prosecute some of the murders. The regime responded swiftly, by quashing the cases, and retroactively justifying the purges through (what else?) another wordily-titled initiative, the Law Regarding Measures of State Self-Defence. The whitewashing of murder as "acts of self-defence by the State" marked the final, irrevocable break from Germany's short-lived democratic experiment, the Weimar Republic (1919-33).

“It would not be impossible 

to prove with sufficient repetition 

and a psychological understanding 

of the people concerned 

that a square is in fact a circle. 

They are mere words, and words can be molded 

until they clothe ideas and disguise.”

<Joseph Goebbels>

<iii.>

The Republican Party is giddily and gleefully orchestrating its own version of Gleichschaltung, in the 23 state legislatures it currently controls. Like the Nazi one, it's happening in plain sight, with no attempts made to hide it. The reaction of many GOP functionaries and followers to Biden's victory last fall over Donald Trump struck me as eerily similar to the racist-tinged disbelief that greeted Obama's historic 2008 win (Jeez, it's a black guy, of all people? Now everybody will want a reparations check with their government cheese), even if many pundits and mainstream media writers seemed poised to ignore it, or brush it aside, despite what their own eyes and ears were telling them. 

The ongoing rightist anger over Biden's win reflects a darker, more dangerous streak of a party, and a fanbase, that seems ready to embrace authoritarianism as the last, best hope of weaponizing its (mostly) white, fundamentalist, nationalist and nativist grievances for good. (For further reflections on how we got here, see our series, "Tomorrow And Tomorrow And Tomorrow Creeps" below.)

We see that idea reflected in the dizzying array of voter suppression laws that Republicans and their allies are passing or plotting. These proposals range from allowing state legislatures to overturn Presidential election results (AZ), to allocating electoral votes by Congressional district, instead of "winner take all" systems (MI), and throwing out no-excuse absentee voting reforms that passed without fanfare only two years before (PA).

Other proposed laws, too many to enumerate here, will drastically cut back numbers and locations of ballot drop boxes, or even Election Day voting hours, curtail absentee or mail-in balloting, or impose requirements -- such as having notaries sign ballots -- that would hit particular types of voters hard, like the elderly, or people with disabilities.

Republican-led legislatures are also moving to muzzle expression they don't like. One of the more outrageous examples just happened in Florida, whose Governor, Trump stooge Ron DeSantis, has signed measures to give police sweeping powers to arrest anyone they deem riotous or disruptive, and provide immunity from civil suits to vigilantes who kill demonstrators (see link below). 

You can almost hear the trigger fingers clicking in anticipation; all that's missing are the brown uniforms and right arms held in that familiar pose we know from decades of "Hogan's Heroes" reruns. As odious as this stuff all sounds, there's a wicked logic at work, too. Suppressing your perceived (read: mostly nonwhite, young) enemies' votes won't always be enough. By definition, any authoritarian equation also has to include the total suppression and criminalization of free speech rights, as Hitler and his allies demonstrated so long ago.

But the GOP Gleichschaltung project doesn't end there. In other cases, state lawmakers and election officials are openly tampering with the democratic machinery they profess to support. For example, in Michigan, where Republican Aaron Van Langeveld cast the decisive vote to certify Biden's victory -- instead of doing Trump's bidding -- has been bumped off its state canvassing board, for a loyalist who probably would have done what the Dear Leader wished.

That's before we get to the Census Bureau's recently-announced apportionment totals thatdetermine how many seats each state gets in Congress. The biggest winner is Texas, which will gain two seats, followed by one apiece for Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina. 

The states getting screwed include California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, which will all lose a seat. Wow, what a shocker. You can almost visualize Republicans in the states they control, twirling their handlebar mustaches like some deranged version of Snidely Whiplash, as they chortle about how to make the latest district maps more one-sided than ever.

"Heh, heh, heh! Curses, curses, too many people voted last time! Well, this map will show them -- it'll keep them out of power for a lifetime! Let's see how they like that! Heh, heh, heh!"

<"The Paradox Of Tolerance">

“The most brilliant propagandist technique 

will yield no success 

unless one fundamental principle 

is borne in mind constantly - 

it must confine itself 

to a few points 

and repeat them over and over.”

<Joseph Goebbels>

<iv.>

At this point, I suspect some of you might be asking yourselves, "Well, wait a minute. What are you talking about? Trump's coup attempt didn't succeed. The system held." That point is technically true, but like most technicalities, it only holds so far. If anything, the 2020 election showed just how goofy the process is, and how fragile it is, too -- if not downright dysfunctional.

Start with the obvious. As many media wags observed, had Biden been directly elected -- instead of sweating the outcome for almost a whole week, in the Electoral College, whose representatives (or electors), cast their votes, based on which candidate wins a particular state -- the race would have ended. No blizzard of meritless lawsuits for Trump to file, and no unhinged press conferences by his acolytes, though he probably would have still sicced his mob of followers on the Capitol, anyway.

So what would have happened, had Van Langeveld buckled in Michigan, or Congress delayed certifying the Presidential election results, to name two scenarios on which Trump pinned his last, desperate hopes of staying forever in office? Any number of nightmarish scenarios would kick in, as Ryan Cooper details in his excellent overview for The Week (see below). 

For example, as Cooper details, if Congress fails to certify a presidential winner in the Electoral College, the U.S. House of Representatives gets the job. Since Republicans hold a majority of House delegations in 26 states, there's nothing to stop them from gumming up or canceling enough state certifications to hand their favored candidate the Presidency. 

That's because "each state delegation bizarrely only gets one vote," Cooper writes. "Wyoming's one representative will get the same sway as the 50-odd representatives in California." So what happens if the process deadlocks, which is possible in a 50-state setup? It's not clear, because there's no process to break a tie. Many states also have an even number of representatives, which only further muddles the situation, he observes.

Thus, it's not too far-fetched to imagine a scenario where the Democratic and Republican nominees show up with their respective entourages, demanding to be sworn in as President, or a rerun of the 2000 presidential election, which the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly awarded, 5-4, to George W. Bush. 

Given the court's current makeup, including three Justices who owe their careers to Trump, it's not hard to guess how that outcome would pan out. This is the legal face of Gleichshaltung, as Nazi-appointed judges began to swat aside defense attorneys' increasingly desperate appeals on behalf of their clients, and the rule of law began to fade away. 

Even without the Supreme Court's potential interference, it's easy to imagine Trump-appointed federal judges serving a similar role, as the ex-President's resurgent personality cult begins tearing up the Constitution to retain power indefinitely, and wields the system like a blunt instrument against its real or imagined enemies. 

It's the same situation that's played out in countries like Hungary, Poland and Turkey, whose autocrats have boldly co-opted the civil service and legal systems to twist the ground rules in their favor. El Salvador joined the Autocrats' Club this weekend, by ousting its attorney general and five high court justices; no nation, however tiny, seems immune from the virus. In any event, once an authoritarian regime gains the upper hand legally, it becomes virtually impossible to root out, short of armed resistance -- a step that often involves massive bloodletting.

The other critical point is that laws and procedures only go so far in and of themselves, as Rick Hasen, an election law expert and professor at the University of California-Irvine, told Rolling Stone. "We narrowly averted disaster (in 2020). There's only so much the law can do. Beyond that, you’re in the realm of a potential coup or raw power politics where the law doesn’t matter.” And raw power politics, as we've learned over and over, since the 2000 presidential election, is one of the GOP's specialties.

“Every age that has historical status 

is governed by aristocracies.

Aristocracy with the meaning - 

the best are ruling.

Peoples do never govern themselves. 

"That lunacy was concocted by liberalism. 

Behind its "people's sovereignty" 

the slyest cheaters are hiding, 

who don't want to be recognized.”


“If the day should ever come when we must go, 

if some day we are compelled to leave 

the scene of history, we will slam the door so hard 

that the universe will shake 

and mankind will stand back 

in stupefaction..”

<Joseph Goebbels>

 

<v.>

There's good news and bad news, as the old joke goes, about these grim facts. The good news? Well, the House has passed a major bill that would institute the most sweeping changes to our creaking system since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The bad news? Short of reforming or killing the filibuster, House Rule 1 (For The People Act) faces an uncertain future, at best, in the current 50-50 Senate.

HR 1 marked the last significant project of John Lewis, the late Georgia Congressman and civil rights action, who wrote the first 300 or so of its 791 pages. For openers, the law would enable automatic voter registration, restore ex-felons' voting rights, and roll back voter suppression techniques, like the imposition of stiffer ID requirements. These steps would spare advocates from having to play the current legal game of Whack-a-Mole in state and federal courts (as in Florida, where challenges are already underway to its anti-protest laws).

Other provisions endorse statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., rein in partisan gerrymandering, along with a series of sweeping anti-corruption measures. The most important would require the disclosure of large donors, and the creation of a small donor fund, as a financial counterweight. Candidates would also be barred from coordinating with so-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees).

It's not hard to see why Senate Republican bullies like Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz have bitterly denounced HR1 as "full-bore socialism," to borrow Mitch the Mummy's preferred term. Senator Mike Lee, of Utah, has gone farther, in blasting HR 1 as "the devil incarnate." When you've carved out so many structural advantages for your psychopathic, power-hungry tribe, change is the last thing on your mind.

Yet so far, at least, there seems to be little official urgency on the Democratic side for getting HR 1 across the finish line, not least because its two most regressive faces, Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), have remained publicly unmoved by pleas to get behind the law. 

Manchin undoubtedly added more stones to that soup with his latest Bizarro World pronouncement, that passing HR 1 by a simple majority of Democrats would only further erode faith in the system -- conveniently forgetting the vows to kill Vice President Mike Pence, among the many, many threats spewed by the pro-Trump insurrectionists on January 6th. 

Is that how true believers in democracy act? And what exactly, do we owe them, other than the legal courtesy of not wearing an orange jump suit for X number of years, if a jury acquits them of major federal crimes? What kind of common ground could any Democrat, never mind someone like Manchin, ever work out with such people? Is there any real point to negotiating with an autocratic wannabe like Trump, who says, "Why settle for an equal share, when I just have it all?" 

That's before we get to one other inconvenient truth, suggests Amanda Litman, executive director of Run For Something, which recruits candidates to run for statewide offices: 

“This is really an existential crisis. It’s a five-alarm fire. But I’m not sure it’s quite sunk in for members of the United States Senate or the Democratic party writ large. If the Senate does not kill the filibuster and pass voting rights reforms … Democrats are going to lose control of the House and likely the Senate forever. You don’t put these worms back into a can. You can’t undo this quite easily,” she added.

Manchin, for his part, stubbornly continues to insist that his GOP counterparts are negotiating in good faith. He sounds like many Weimar-era politicians, who didn't grasp -- or refused to grasp -- what kind of people they were dealing with. A scan of many social media pages, websites and news articles has convinced me that the GOP's newfound authoritarian posture isn't some temporary aberration, but the shape of things to come, if we allow it.

From that posture, it's possible to draw three inferences. First, that Christianity, and the Republican Party, are America's default religion and political beliefs, respectively. No other opinions need to be considered. Second, anyone who objects to the first assumption must be suppressed, no matter what. Third, when it comes suppressing dissenting power politics, the ends always justify the means.

None of those inferences should come as news flashes, since the GOP and its allies have been saying the quiet part out loud for a long, long time. You can go to such examples as right-wing activist Paul Weyrich's infamous admission to evangelical leaders in 1980: "I don’t want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” Republican leaders have allowed many, many similar utterances to slip past their double-talking lips since then.

Like it or not, the showdown is coming, up close and personal. Rubber and road are about to meet, and the resulting pileup won't look pretty. However...if we don't stand up to protect voting rights, then nothing else matters. The promise of a brighter economic future rings hollow without the equal promise of expressing yourself freely, and deciding who's best suited in carrying out your wishes. 

No nation that's decoupled these promises has ever made that type of shotgun marriage stick, as a glance through history's back pages teaches us. The only constant of dictatorships is that they all get toppled. Some last longer than others, but all Gleichshaltung efforts eventually end up on the historical dust heap. 

Now is not the time to let up, as I've said here before. I'll leave you with one final thought, from one of HR 1's other chief architects, Congressman John Sarbanes (D-MD): “This is not a matter of ‘we can do it now or later. If we don’t do it now, there may not be a later.”

I couldn't have said it better. Is there a "later" for everyone? We'll find out soon enough. --The Reckoner

Links To Go (Hurry, Hurry,

Before One-Party Rule Kicks In):

Associated Press

Former Trump Adviser

Takes Prominent Role In Voting Battle:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/former-trump-adviser-takes-prominent-042304849.html

Miami Herald Editorial:

Heaven Help Us If Court Upholds

DeSantis' Assault On Free Speech...
https://news.yahoo.com/heaven-help-us-court-upholds-100000745.html

Ramen Noodle Nation:

Tomorrow And Tomorrow And Tomorrow Creeps (Takes I-III):

https://ramennoodlenation.blogspot.com/search/label/Election%202020

Rolling Stone: Democracy On The Brink:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/democracy-brink-161201472.html

The Guardian: Why A Filibuster Showdown In The US Senate Is Unavoidable:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-filibuster-showdown-us-senate-140006191.html

The Week: The Republican Plot To Steal The 2024 Election:

https://theweek.com/articles/979505/republican-plot-steal-2024-election

Yahoo News: El Salvador's Top Judges,

Attorney General Ousted By Ruling Party:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/el-salvador-top-judges-attorney-190917419.html