This is an interesting hypothetical, particularly for the right, as the only time the Republican Party has held a supermajority in the House and Senate is from 1861-1871. Democrats did so for the 64th Congress under Woodrow Wilson (1915-1917), during the FDR New Deal Era (1933-1939), LBJ's "Great Society" era (1965-1967), and during Obama's first term from 2009-2011.
So it has been almost 100 years since there has been an extended stretch of congressional control that also coincided with that party also controlling the White House. Even then, a relatively balanced court early in FDR's term blocked the more extreme measures proposed by FDR much to his chagrin, including his attempts to pack the court. He later went on to appoint 8 justices, altering the balance of the court for decades.
So when looking at it today, you need to read through the messaging of what individuals campaign on and identify also what they, and their party, would do if left completely unchecked. Is the answer to this a matter of who believes the fear-mongering propaganda from either side? Can any of those fears be validated by attempted actions that were blocked by courts, congress or presidential veto?
Let's keep this civil (lol) and try to run this hypothetical out...
I'll start with what @DM8 @WDTE and @KilgoreTrout have been talking about the most lately, and that is Project 2025. If you took that as a blueprint (as they say it is) for a conservative agenda - do you see this as your worst fears realized or is this only what the right is willing to put out for public consumption and their real desires would be far more sinister? If the former, is it really that bad? From an electoral appeal standpoint, it wouldn't be great, but reinforcing conservative Judeo-Christian values, deprioritizing climate initiatives, shrinking the size of the government, and returning more power to the states might not be where your priorities lie, but does it send our country down a path of destruction? I mean, I don't want Porn outlawed (prohibition, and stuff...) but if that happened, does that hurt our country?
Similarly, you could look at the Green New Deal proposal or some of the more progressive social and fiscal policy proposals and, IMO, question how those policies don't cause significant harm through the long-term impacts of deficit spending and how the further destruction of the nuclear family doesn't lead to greater wealth and income disparities throughout under-privileged and minority communities.
A system of checks and balances is always good, but is one side pushing us towards a more negative outcome while standing on the virtue-signaling soap box? It is certainly easier to win office on the message of what you are going to give people... but is that what people need? Is that what our country needs?
So it has been almost 100 years since there has been an extended stretch of congressional control that also coincided with that party also controlling the White House. Even then, a relatively balanced court early in FDR's term blocked the more extreme measures proposed by FDR much to his chagrin, including his attempts to pack the court. He later went on to appoint 8 justices, altering the balance of the court for decades.
So when looking at it today, you need to read through the messaging of what individuals campaign on and identify also what they, and their party, would do if left completely unchecked. Is the answer to this a matter of who believes the fear-mongering propaganda from either side? Can any of those fears be validated by attempted actions that were blocked by courts, congress or presidential veto?
Let's keep this civil (lol) and try to run this hypothetical out...
I'll start with what @DM8 @WDTE and @KilgoreTrout have been talking about the most lately, and that is Project 2025. If you took that as a blueprint (as they say it is) for a conservative agenda - do you see this as your worst fears realized or is this only what the right is willing to put out for public consumption and their real desires would be far more sinister? If the former, is it really that bad? From an electoral appeal standpoint, it wouldn't be great, but reinforcing conservative Judeo-Christian values, deprioritizing climate initiatives, shrinking the size of the government, and returning more power to the states might not be where your priorities lie, but does it send our country down a path of destruction? I mean, I don't want Porn outlawed (prohibition, and stuff...) but if that happened, does that hurt our country?
Similarly, you could look at the Green New Deal proposal or some of the more progressive social and fiscal policy proposals and, IMO, question how those policies don't cause significant harm through the long-term impacts of deficit spending and how the further destruction of the nuclear family doesn't lead to greater wealth and income disparities throughout under-privileged and minority communities.
A system of checks and balances is always good, but is one side pushing us towards a more negative outcome while standing on the virtue-signaling soap box? It is certainly easier to win office on the message of what you are going to give people... but is that what people need? Is that what our country needs?
