I'm among those who believe the two major parties do not, in any way, have equal concern for America. That's not to say that the Democrats (a party I left ten years ago) are clean, honest, effective, and forward-looking. To some extent, they share in the corruption and absolutism of the right. But in terms of the two parties' policies and the people they choose to represent, lead, and support them, the contemporary Republican party doesn't have a moral leg to stand on. So I'm with James Fallows' Dutch correspondent who writes:
The Right holds the majority in the House and uses it, as is morally their right. But in the Senate we see the minority filibustering any legislation emanating from the majority, regardless of how conservative that proposal is fundamentally. It strikes me as nothing more than a scorched earth policy, and profoundly undemocratic. This is not a loyal opposition; it is a rejection of the legitimacy of the elected majority.
And the reporting from the Supreme Court has been profoundly shocking - with conservative justices spouting tea party/talk radio talking points about broccoli and cell-phone mandates, and non-existent Cornhusker Kickbacks. Scalia's 'originalism' is being demonstrated to be fundamentally hollow and partisan.
I am not an American and do not live in the US. But what is happening in the world's most important and powerful democracy is shocking and frightening in the absolute, and does concern the rest of the world. ...The Atlantic
For sure. Any country that has the military power and the chutzpa of America now should be regarded with great wariness -- even more so now that we're coming apart politically and falling into that embrace of authoritarian assumptions we've been warned about over and over again.
Fallows writes today about the Supreme Court, among other branches laden with rightwing radicalism.
... Life tenure for federal justices, especially for the Supreme Court, has got to go, since it makes the appointment process a crudely cynical actuarial contest. (Locus classicus: Clarence Thomas, age 43 when appointed, so if he watches his weight he could plausibly end up spending most of his life as a sitting though silent Justice.) Eventually a sufficiently ruthless party will nominate Justices while they're still taking their LSATs. ...The Atlantic