Doug Thompson

That book made me realize that if southern Democrats and anti-New Deal (esp. midwestern industrialist) Republicans were in the same party in 1932, the US would have probably gone fascist. By 1994, their heirs had sorted into the same party, and presto!

In other words, we all need to read this book…

Democratizing “reconstruction” moments only happen in the US when the anti-democratization party is totally excluded (1865, 1932) or when the parties are *both* internally split on “race.”

Neither is true in 2025. So what’s the path forward?

It's the only way, and Dem leaders can't give up on it, despite the murky future. How they'll respond to the imminent (b/c newly funded) expansion of coercion & detention is another variable...

Plus the media environment. Will rural GOP voters assign blame accurately for lost healthcare and recession caused by tariffs, immigration labor shock, & public sector cuts? That seems to be to be the biggest obstacle.

I agree, but It's so hard to see the path forward to building the required supermajority under current conditions.

Those constitutional moments are so contingent (on economic collapse, total wars, etc.). 2025 lacks the wrecked opposition of 1865 & 1932 & the internal party splits on "race" of 1965.

I want to be reassured, but I am not optimistic. The anti-democratization "Jim Crow refounding" took almost a century to reverse. And then the backlash against it (via partisan resorting of voters by attitudes on "race") produced the current moment. What is the path back to democracy? (fin)

So where's the pro-democratization supermajority going to come from? It's really not clear right now.

The BBB perversely attacks the well-being of its sponsors' voters. But there is no indication that those voters will assign blame accurately and switch parties in this media environment. (11/)

So, here we (very much already) are, in the 5th refounding--not one of the democratizing ones. The problem is that we're not in 1865, 1932, or 1965. The anti-democratization party is not shut out of US politics like 1865 or 1932. And both parties aren't internally split on "race" like 1965. (10/)

BUT, it shares features with the violent insurgency against the 1st Reconstruction. Today we have 1 party focused on reversing past democratization events (much like the 1870s-1890s). And the other party (so far) isn't willing or able to defend democracy (with many individual exceptions). (9/)

There were enough *pro-Civil Rights* leaders in both parties to make a majority.

Well ... that ship has sailed. The 5th "refounding" is undoing all of the previous 3 democratizing "refoundings." It can't be a return to "Jim Crow + laissez faire," à la 1900. It's something new. (8/)

The 2nd Reconstruction was different. It was obviously a democratization event (the end of Jim Crow authoritarianism plus an expansion of what we could vote for, e.g., health care in Medicare & Medicaid!).

But it was only possible because both parties were internally split about "race." (7/)

The GOP was so discredited b/c of its dogged insistence on laissez faire. Everyone could tangibly *see* that it wasn't working. Because of this, the GOP would not win consistent Congressional majorities again until the 1990s--60 yrs later (6/)

The New Deal was also a democratization event. Why? Now majorities of voters could vote for economic policies they wanted (e.g, Social Security), and there was actually the gov't administrative capacity to deliver on them.

This was only possible b/c the US was in effect a 1-party state again. (5/)

Once readmitted, Southern Democrats launched a violent insurgency against this democratization. By the 1890s, they won (after killing ~4,000 political opponents).

They were able to win because Northern Republicans didn't want to pay for security to defend the Reconstruction democracies. (4/)

1st Reconstruction was a moment of democratization--the 1st ever founding of universal male suffrage and civil rights in the South.

It was only possible (at first) b/c the 11 states of the defeated Confederacy were not yet readmitted to Congress. The US was a 1-party (GOP) country. (3/)

They are: 1) 1st Reconstruction; 2) the murder of Reconstruction by "Jim Crow" authoritarian rule (in 11 states, with federal complicity); 3) the New Deal; 4) 2nd Reconstruction (the end of "Jim Crow" authoritarianism + the Great Society).

How does 2025's "refounding" compare w/ these? (2/)

Until now, the basic structure of how the US Constitution "works" has been "refounded" 4 times. We are now *very* far into the 5th "refounding." Dr. McMillan Cottom is right. There is no easy path toward quickly & peacefully reversing this.

Why? Let's look at the other "refounding" moments. (1/)

Folk Constitutionalism, or Why it Matters How Ordinary People Think about the Constitution A truly inclusive democratic politics must be understandable, or cognitively tractable, for ordinary people busy with the rest of their lives. This extends not only to everyday politics and policy,...

@jamellebouie.net's recent columns advance the view that the US Constitution extends far beyond the brief formal text & those informal & unwritten pieces are central to the character of the constitutional order.

I just published an article detailing a similar view, but develop it a bit differently:

This looks great—and personally quite timely. I’m finishing a manuscript on Du Bois, representative bureaucracy, and the importance of heuristic historical narrative for publicly legitimating complex institutions. Your article will be a huge help in thinking about the public narrative parts.

Now is a moment to reshare this video

100%. No one understands how terrible Halliburton feels more than fellow players.

(…and the crowd is back!)

Yeah, that’s awful, and kudos to the crowd. (When I first posted I had tuned in late w/o sound … I didn’t realize Halliburton was out.) That said, I don’t see an asterisk. As a Celtics fan, NY won fair and square after Tatum’s Achilles.

Seattle would (should) be hopping.

Fair enough … I tuned in late and missed it.

Weird dead OKC crowd. Like it’s rude to get excited.

👀 👀 👀

Inject this in my veins ❤️

I agree. I doubt the general staff would allow a ground invasion. The US doesn’t have enough military personnel. But open-ended airstrikes would be disaster enough.

Death cheerleaders seems to be their default position.

I hope so, for our sake and for Iranians too.