Time for a new "Yet Another Mass Shooting Thread"

Well, let's start with the premise. I'm not saying you have argued this nor do you believe it, but there was some chatter from the pundit class that Democrats were being stubborn or uncivil or otherwise unreasonable in "refusing" to support McCarthy.

Let's get this out of the way--what the Democrats did was totally within the normal bounds of party politics, parliamentary procedure, Congressional tradition, and the democratic norms of our history. Congressional majorities elect one of their own as the majority leader, with the goal of enacting the policy goals of the majority party.

The minority party, meanwhile, plays the role of loyal opposition. And they do so because they are respecting the will and the wishes of their voters. This ideal--that voters have a right to expect their elected officials to legislate and govern in accordance to how they campaigned and what party they belong to--is one of the very few democratic norms that even Republicans still largely abide by. Voters have every right to feel betrayed or mislead when an individual elected official abruptly switches parties after an election; having the party they support turn around and help the other party elect their leader in order to advance their agenda would rightly be regarded as an even bigger betrayal of public trust.

So--let's get that baseline established right away. What you are advocating is an aberration, a rejection of norms--you are asking the Democrats to add one of the few remaining democratic norms left in Washington to the smoldering trash heap of democracy; which up to this point the GOP has largely been stoking all on its own.

Again--I think you're aware of this, you just believe that while regrettable, it's a sacrifice worth making. I think you're wrong just based on the above--i.e., I think you're underestimating the long-term damage that such a break with normal political behavior would have. I don't think you can just switch democracy back on once you've chosen to break it.

That said--you are making the argument that the danger of a GOP speaker who is acceptable to the MAGA hardliners would have been worth the cost of Democratic support for McCarthy. And I'm going to assume that you and I agree that Kevin McCarthy is a loathsome man lacking in character, integrity, and courage. I don't think you're under any illusions that he would go on to work in good faith with Democrats--but I do think you're assuming that Democrats might have been able to get enough hard, non-negotiable benefits in exchange to make it worth it. I don't think that would have been possible. The same GOP members who were scolding Democrats for "joining" with the 8 MAGA defectors were also very clear that they expected McCarthy to be their leader. There was no basis for Democrats to get any real leverage over McCarthy and his caucus. The chance of Kevin McCarthy emerging as a true fusion Speaker were just about nil. And the chances of getting much of anything from him or his caucus were also pretty low--he lasted, what, a week after Gaetz brought the motion. There was no time to get any kind of consensus or willingness to compromise from the GOP. They expected Democrats to save them from themselves in exchange for nothing except marginally less nihilism.

But you're also not factoring in how McCarthy's Speakership would have changed after being kept in with Democratic support. The Kevin McCarthy who very, VERY occasionally refused to do the very worst things a Jim Jordan would have liked to do would be no more--the new Kevin McCarthy would need to prove something to his own party and his own base. Being Speaker of the House isn't like being President--you have a lot of power, but it's largely soft power that comes from being able to organize your caucus and deliver some legislative action. I can almost guarantee he'd be working much harder to appease GOP hardliners than in trying to thank Democrats for their support.

I really think this is the crux of the problem--comparing McCarthy to Jordan or Johnson ignores that the Speakership is not an executive office. The power is more diffuse, more a function of what's possible from an entire caucus rather than the beliefs or desires of the leader themselves. The answer to your implied question "Do you understand that Jim Jordan is an even worse person than Kevin McCarthy" isn't "Yes" or "No", it's "That's not particularly relevant to the issue at hand." In short--I think you're being myopic about the larger picture, which is blinding you to the long-term damage that your short-term damage-control tactical advice would inflict.

And to repeat myself from an earlier response--the damage to future Democratic turnout would likely be devastating. Voters will forgive a political party for disappointing them, but not nearly as much for betraying them. Democrats campaign on the notion that the GOP is a radical right-wing party with dangerously reactionary political goals. To turn around help them elect their own Speaker so that he can go on to push that very right-wing, reactionary agenda--well, once the Democratic Party has their fingerprints on that, good luck convincing skeptical voters that they are a meaningful opposition. The Democratic Party is far from perfect, and my loyalty is largely to the American Republic not my political party--but right now, the party still largely tries to abide by deference to democratic norms and some level of accountability to their own voters. Vote with the GOP for their leader, and they throw that moral high ground away.

 

No worries (and sorry about your keyboard situation)!

 

I've heard them say this, and I disagree. It is the people who believe in the institutions and those who don't. For example, Jordan is BT, but is MAGA. And there are a lot of them. On the other side, there are people like Buck, who for all is faults, seems to believe in the institution of government.

 

Warning signs all over the place, yet nobody had the courage...

I understand your point, but I think you are looking at it wrong. It is the unwillingness to address the issue that people (left and right) not only accept violence, but approve of it. And when they don't, it is about a person, or the blame of something else.

Again, this goes back to blame. Yes, there are issues, and there always will be. And in this day, we want a quick answer. And when we don't get it, we blame somebody else.

I would put it down to lack of courage.

And that some of the police don't have the courage to do it. Perhaps it is just that day. Perhaps it is just that call. Perhaps it is the officer or the department.

In a lot of ways, it is.

 

Remember that shooting at a bank in Louisville back in April. It's not what you think...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/11/21/louisville-shooter-connor-sturgeon-report/

A man who killed five people and injured eight at a Louisville bank in April was motivated by outrage over gun laws he considered lax, and a hope that his rampage would highlight the ease with which he acquired an AR-15 and spur politicians into action on the issue, according to the shooter’s personal writings revealed in a police report Thursday.

“I have decided to make an impact. These people did not deserve to die, but because I was depressed and able to buy [guns], they are gone. Perhaps this is the impact for change — upper class white people dying. I certainly would not have been able to do this were it more difficult to get a gun,” Connor Sturgeon wrote six days before the April 10 shooting at the Old National Bank where he worked.​

 

CNN live feed says the police say the suspect (singular) is dead. I'll go with a news source over a Xwitter rando.

 

Normally, I don't take media quoting police. But when there is an active shooter, and they sounding declarative (IOW, not considering there to be a second shooter), I'll take the media.