Balioc's been interested in political dependency resolution for exiting the state of exception recently, and current conditions are good reason. Both coalitions view the other as an existential risk.
There's a blue client, Boomer or Gen-X, that I interact with. Nice guy. Donates to charity. He is scared shitless. He thinks Trump is going to use the Insurrection Act to halt the midterm elections.
He's not schizophrenic or anything. I think he's quite stressed about all this. Meanwhile, the Washington Post is posting this on Twitter/X:
Sane liberals, of course, want this all to be over with. This kind of miasma theory is an obstacle to talking about housing policy, or whatever other legitimate function a center-left party might serve in this country. It reminds me of that scientific study that circulated claiming that white doctors disproportionately killed black babies, which turned out, unsurprisingly, to be bunk.
Now, obviously I would say that this is totally unacceptable, that this cannot be the future of this country, etc, etc. (From a right-wing perspective, there's simply not much point to NATO if NATO's governing coalitions are balanced on a hatred of their native populations.) Left-leaning people would presumably say that Trump is too close to dictatorship, cannot be the future of this country, etc, etc.
Part of the question of what is to be done is whether the Washington Post is part of "the Democrats." The right-wingers view the Democrats as a broad constellation of ideologically-aligned individuals and organizations who coordinate their actions socially and ideologically. Someone like morlock-holmes thinks the Democrats are just the party. The right-wingers would say that what's considered acceptable to Democratic staffers, voters, and politicians is significantly a function of the Washington Post, New York Times, etc, and therefore these institutions, due to how blue they are, count as part of the Democrats, because when you elect a Democrat, you are, in effect, electing the New York Times.
That gets us to the strategic basis for the current right-wing actions.
The initial objective was to force an election loss against a candidate that people who agree with this WaPo writer hated, to make them feel unpopular, disliked, unwanted, and rejected by Americans, to synchronize knowledge across the entire Democratic structure that this shit must stop.
Since the origin of the behavior, which emerged into the mainstream around 2013-2014, seems to be a belief in permanent victory by demographic change, a bastardization of the Emerging Democratic Majority theory, the next step was mass deportations to break the idea that migration can only go one way, so Democrats can just import huge numbers of people that can be reasonably expected to vote Democrat, or whose children can be expected to vote Democrat.
The idea, here, was to appeal to strategic logic, as if the Democrats in charge could be appealed to morally, they wouldn't have pushed for a "racial reckoning." (The "racial reckoning" could only happen because they didn't have a suitable policy suite to implement; otherwise, they could just implement that suite in blue states and win on it electorally, and no "reckoning" would be needed.)
The reason I'm bringing this all up is that the structure or flow of the right-wing response reveals a potential alternate path to break the deadlock.
If the entire thing is mostly a bank shot to try to convince blue elites to stop trying to dispossess the country, and the primary point is to convince The New York Times, the Washington Post, Ivy League universities, etc, then changing the key leadership in these institutions and firing enough of the right people, changing the "respectable consensus," could offer a path out.
Whether that's easier than getting congressional Democrats to try to vote their way out is unclear.
For the Washington Post, it might be possible to convince Bezos to axe whatever department posted this. For Ivy League universities, a sufficiently coordinated leverage attempt by donors might work, although the endowments might inhibit this. Someone must own the New York Times. Perhaps it can just be purchased.
The right-wing's critical fork is the combination of mass immigration with the balancing of the left coalition based on hating the natives.
If enough elite blue institutions publicly disown this sort of thing, then it will become déclassé and the credibility that voting blue isn't voting for whatever this is will increase, dismantling one prong of the fork.
The right-wingers don't believe that libs will give up mass immigration due to prior manipulation of procedural outcomes. As long as mass immigration is considered a moral compromise with the evil electorate, right-wingers will expect immigration control to be undermined by manipulation of procedural outcomes.
The development and propagation of a moral reason for libs to restrict immigration would address the second prong of the fork; it would establish that procedures would no longer be manipulated.
At that point, the right-wing's internal justification for the state of exception would collapse (or to put it another way, the relative value of the bid supporting the state of exception would decline dramatically). They would still have issues to campaign on, but that would be more within the realm of normal politicians.
I'm saying that the above would be theoretically possible. It's not clear that it would be easy. Many libs currently deny even the existence of left-racialism, so nominally, that part wouldn't be a change. In practice, they might be more attached to it than they would seem.
Many libs also deny that Democrats support mass immigration, but it seems doubtful they would be comfortable with tough restrictions.
