Democrats sued Wednesday to block Donald Trump’s latest executive order restricting mail voting, arguing that the U.S. Constitution empowers states and Congress, not the president, to determine who is eligible to vote by mail.
The lawsuit marks the second round of battles over the president’s power to control elections. Trump’s opponents handily won the first round last year, blocking his initial executive order intended to reshape election procedures by convincing multiple federal judges that it was likely unconstitutional.
Trump on Tuesday announced that his administration would compile lists of who is eligible to vote in states and that the U.S. Postal Service would only mail ballots to those who met that criteria. Critics note that there’s little time to comb through voter rolls before ballots start going out for this fall’s elections, in some places as soon as September, and question whether the administration’s list would be reliable.
It is news because it is a thing happening, and an informed public is a good thing. Perhaps also because corporate news agencies make money off advertising toward outrage. Malaise and burying one’s head in the sand won’t move the needle either.
Well I didn’t say that, did I?
What bothers me about reports like these is that, while we do have an “informed public”—strictly speaking, for the past year or so, or even longer for those who go through life with their eyes wide open—it has no real consequences. There are no general strikes, just one-day protests announced well in advance. The activism of many, even here in our bubble, seems to be limited to liking such articles.
How often did we read articles during Trump’s first term along the lines of “Things are really getting tight for him now!”? That didn’t change a thing except to lull parts of the moderate spectrum into a false sense of security that “everything will somehow work out.” In my opinion, these articles therefore do not currently promote activism (anymore) but, on the contrary, lull people into complacency, which is why I’ve criticized this one here in my sarcastic way.
Do you remember the first few months of Trump II? The homogenization of the state apparatus and the filling of vacant positions with loyalists (for example, at the Post Office, to draw the connection) were aimed precisely at the current situation: MAGA supporters are not deterred by even the most numerous lost court cases; they will do what the leader commands, regardless of the legal situation.
From the very beginning, the goal was to continue exercising power even when it is obviously wrong.
I’m not saying you said that. I’m saying to cease telling the news would be giving in to malaise and burying one’s head in the sand. That’s why this is news. Because what the news does is report things that happen. This happened.
Okay, that makes sense.
Then let me put it another way: Personally, I’m tired of reading articles that fuel hope that an obviously corrupt system will actually work.
Personally, I don’t believe that the oligarchy surrounding Trump—and least of all Trump himself—will accept defeat, even in the midterms. Personally, I believe it will take significantly more activism than relying on “court rulings to restore the rule of law” when the other side has obviously long since started playing dirty.