Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)

Democracy is in peril. Though it has yet to fully register as the national story it deserves to be, America is currently in the throes of what may well be the most concerted effort at voter suppression and discrimination in living memory. Since the beginning of the year, Republican state legislators have introduced a deluge of new laws intended to restrict voting, suppress traditionally non-Republican constituencies, and overturn election results. These laws represent the greatest assault on voting rights since the end of Reconstruction. If you look at the number of bills introduced, the number of bills passed, and the intensity of the effort behind it, I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. Many of these efforts were blocked under the Voting Rights Act — and since the Supreme Court gutted it in 2013, voter suppression has gotten worse. But this seems to be the worst it’s been in the past decade.

It’s not like this is the first time there have been efforts to suppress the vote, but we are seeing a greater number of efforts at suppression, more restrictive bills than before, and more intensity within the Republican party to pass them. On a national level, Republicans in Congress refuse to support the For the People Act (also known as H.R. 1), which would expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders. Republican know that they cannot win the majority of elections if free, fair, and accessible elections are allowed to occur. The GOP knows that they are a minority party led by extremists who fear true democracy. It is not election fraud that Republicans fear; they fear easier access to the polls. The 2020 election proved their worst fears: if people are given greater voting access, Republicans will remain in the minority. So, they are doing everything possible to make it more difficult to vote.

In addition, thirty-three states have introduced more than 100 bills that aim to curb the rights of transgender people across the country, with advocacy groups calling 2021 a record-breaking year for such legislation. LGBTQ+ people in America continue to face discrimination in their daily lives. While more states every year work to pass laws to protect LGBTQ+ people, we continue to see state legislatures advancing bills that target transgender people, limit local protections, and allow the use of religion to discriminate. With an unprecedented number of anti-LGBTQ measures sweeping through state legislatures across the country, 2021 is on the cusp of surpassing 2015 as the worst year for anti-LGBTQ legislation in recent history, according to new tracking and analysis by the Human Rights Campaign.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced last month that the Senate could take up the Equality Act, which would enshrine legal protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, in June. Still, it’s not yet clear whether the Senate will consider the House-passed bill during Pride month. The Equality Act, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service. The Supreme Court’s June 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, protects gay and transgender people in matters of employment, but not in other respects. The bill would also expand existing civil rights protections for people of color by prohibiting discrimination in more public accommodations, such as exhibitions, goods and services, and transportation.

Twenty-nine states do not have laws that explicitly shield LGBTQ Americans from discrimination, resulting in a patchwork of protections that vary from state to state. The Equality Act would extend protections to cover federally funded programs, employment, housing, loan applications, education, and public accommodations. In addition, the Equality Act would prevent discrimination under federally funded programs based on sex or sexual orientation, including barring discrimination by faith-based organizations that receive federal funding, such as Catholic Charities, which has refused its adoption services to same-sex couples in the past. Senator Joe Manchin, the problem child of Democrats in the Senate, is the lone Democrat who is not a co-sponsor of the bill. Manchin said in 2019 that he would not support the bill without changes, explaining at the time that he was “not convinced that the Equality Act as written provides sufficient guidance to the local officials who will be responsible for implementing it, particularly with respect to students transitioning between genders in public schools.” I personally believe that any tax-exempt faith-based organization that involves itself in politics, then it should lose its tax-exempt status. Politics and discrimination have no place in religion, and it is time for religious institutions to realize this. Furthermore, I don’t believe any political and partisan organization should be tax-exempt. If you’re non-partisan and don’t discriminate, then you can have tax-exempt status.

The protections offered by the Equality Act are broadly popular among most Americans. A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 76% of Americans support protections for LGBTQ+ Americans from discrimination in jobs, housing, and public accommodation. Although support is stronger among Democrats and independents, the poll found that most Republicans, 62%, also support anti-discrimination laws. Advocates argue that given the popularity of anti-discrimination measures even among Republicans, senators from GOP-dominant states should vote with their constituents on the issue. However, we have found out from the Republican Party that they do not care about the majority of their constituents. They want to restrict access to the ability to vote, especially for people who disagree with them. They also do not care what even those who largely agree with them want. For example, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 without a single vote from a Republican, even though most Republican voters supported the stimulus bill. Even though they all voted against it, Republicans across the country have promoted elements of the legislation they fought to defeat.

The opposition to the For The People Act and the Equality Act are not the only threats to democracy. The Washington, D.C. Admission Act (and the possibility of the admission of Puerto Rico as a state) and the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 would also expand democracy and safety for minorities in the United States. Republicans know that if Puerto Rico became a state, it would likely add five members with full voting rights to the House of Representatives and two members to the Senate, which would likely result in an almost guaranteed seven electoral votes in a presidential election. Since the House of Representatives is limited to 435 members under the Reapportionment Act of 1929, Minnesota, California, Texas, Washington and Florida would each lose one electoral vote. Washington, D.C. would likely get one Representative, giving it three electoral votes, which are also almost guaranteed to be cast for the Democratic nominee in a presidential election.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021would hold law enforcement accountable for misconduct in court, improve transparency through data collection, and reform police training and policies. To me, the most essential provision of this bill is that it will establish a federal registry of police misconduct complaints and disciplinary actions. Currently, there is no such registry. As a result, if a law enforcement officer does something that warrants misconduct and disciplinary action and is dismissed from one department and applies for another, there is no way to know why they left their former employment. Furthermore, nothing requires their former employer to report misconduct to a new employer. In fact, current laws discourage a former employer from making any statements that might be seen as derogatory about their former employee.

To get any of this done, the Senate must reform or get rid of the filibuster. The filibuster is an archaic rule that the House of Representatives did away with in 1888. By the way, it was Republicans who ended the filibuster in the House. Democrats tried to bring it back in 1891 when they regained control, but Republicans used the reinstated filibuster to such frustrating effect that Democrats had no choice but to re-abolish it two years later. Opponents of abolishing the filibuster in the Senate often claim that the filibuster was part of the original design of the Senate. It was not. In fact, the traitor Aaron Burr introduced the idea of the filibuster in the Senate in 1805, and the Senate enacted it in 1806. But no Senator used it until 1837, when it was used for the first time. 

The Senate has been a problem to democracy from its beginning. The so-called “Great Compromise” (aka the Connecticut Compromise) was never popular with our Founding Fathers. It passed at the Constitutional Convention by one vote, 5–4–1. If we are talking about majority will, this was not a good example. Those five state delegations voting in favor did not represent most state delegations because 12 states sent delegates to the convention. Although there were thirteen states, Rhode Island did not send any delegates. The Senate has always been an elitist institution. State legislatures initially chose senators, but that ended in 1913 with the Seventeenth Amendment, which established the direct election of United States senators in each state.

The Senate’s operations result in partisan paralysis due to its preponderance of arcane and undemocratic rules. The Constitution specifies a simple majority threshold to pass legislation, and the filibuster is mentioned nowhere in the document. Representation in the Senate is not proportional to the population and is “anti-democratic” and creates “minority rule.” The Senate, like the rest of the U.S. government, does not represent minorities well. The approximately four million Americans that have no representation in the Senate (in the District of Columbia and U.S. territories) are heavily African and Hispanic American. D.C. and the territories at least have nonvoting delegates in the House. While we cannot get rid of the Senate, it is the most undemocratic institution in the American government, followed closely by the Electoral College. Reforms are desperately needed, and the laws mentioned above need to be enacted at all costs. We are guaranteed just under two years to have a majority in both houses of Congress. Someone needs to get Democratic Senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, both of whom have frustrated Democrats with their defense of the filibuster. The Senate has to be made more democratic, and while the Seventeenth Amendment was a start, more needs to be done to promote equality in America.

Navient, a company that services 25% of student loans in the United States for the U.S. Department of Education, handles my student loans. They are a pain in the ass to deal with, especially when their website is constantly down. Every year, I have to submit proof of my income for the student loan income-driven repayment plan, which bases my student loan payments on my current income. Back before I was eligible to take advantage of this program, and I was still working at the private school in Alabama, my gross monthly salary was $2,000, and I was paying over $900 in student loan payments each month. If it had not been for my aunt’s help, I would not have been able to survive. Luckily, the laws concerning student loans under the Obama administration changed to make it easier to repay loans based on income, get loan forgiveness for public service, and stop predatory lenders. Much of the benefits put in place by the Obama administration were either ignored or undone by the administration of the former twice-impeached president’s administration, who appointed an Education Secretary with no education experience.

While I am a huge supporter of President Biden, he has to get off the fence about student loans and the skyrocketing cost of college tuition. Biden campaigned on a platform that included ambitious changes for higher education and relief for student loan borrowers. On his first day in office, he extended the student loan payment pause through September 30, 2021. Since then, he has laid the groundwork for student debt cancellation, but he has offered no specific proposal or amount yet. Depending upon pending legal interpretation, Biden could use executive authority to cancel student loan debt or ask that Congress pass a bill doing so. On April 28, the White House unveiled its American Families Plan, which, among other things, proposes to increase Pell Grants, provides for free community college, and steps up aid for schools that serve minorities. It must pass both houses of Congress before it becomes law.

Even before Biden’s inauguration, his staff reiterated the president’s support for Congress to “immediately” cancel $10,000 of federal student loan debt per person as part of COVID-19 relief. While this plan would wipe out debt entirely for nearly 15 million borrowers who owe $10,000 or less, the majority of student loan borrowers (roughly 67%) have significantly more than $10,000 in debt. Everyone I know (all of whom went to graduate school) who has student debt owes between $150,000 and $200,000 in student loans. On the campaign trail, Biden recommended canceling federal student debt in the following instances:

• If you attended a public college or university. Attendees of private historically Black colleges and universities and additional minority-serving institutions would also be eligible.
• If you used the loans for undergraduate tuition. Biden’s proposal would not cancel graduate student debt under his current plan.
• If you earn less than $125,000. Biden’s platform referenced a phase-out of this benefit but did not offer further details.

This plan does a great disservice for people who went to graduate school. While I was able to work during my undergraduate degree to supplement my scholarships, I was forbidden by Mississippi state law from working outside the university while on a graduate assistantship, which paid my tuition plus a minuscule stipend ($5,000 a year for my M.A., $9,000 a year for Ph.D., the rest of my money to live on had to come from student loans). None of President Biden’s plans offer any significant assistance for graduate student loans — for which the average student debt is $71,000. Most of us who received graduate degrees, especially in the liberal arts and education, did not do so because we expected high-paying jobs. Many of us did so to go into public service.

President Biden has offered the beginnings of great plans for many Americans suffering from student debt, but it doesn’t go near far enough. The cost of tuition in the United States is rising faster than at any time in history. In 1996 when I started my undergraduate degree, the average cost of public, four-year colleges and universities was $7,140 (inflation-adjusted: $11,460). The cost of tuition at my undergraduate university was significantly lower at $2,355 for tuition and fees, and I paid roughly another $900 for room and board (inflation-adjusted: $5,495). Luckily, I had scholarships that paid for most of that, so I didn’t have to take out student loans while getting my undergraduate degree. At my undergraduate institution, the cost is now $25,180. If you consider inflation, the current cost is nearly a 460 percent increase from 25 years ago.

In contrast, in 1977 (the year I was born), the average cost of tuition for public, four-year colleges and universities was $2,040 (inflation-adjusted: $8,430). From 1977 to 1996, the average cost of tuition only increased by about 135 percent if you adjust for inflation. If this trend continues, the average American will be priced out of getting a college education. If a person took out student loans to pay for their undergraduate education and decided to go beyond their four-year degree, they would go into a graduate or professional school already owing more than $100,000 in student debt.

The United States lags behind the world’s major countries in the availability of affordable education and healthcare. The cost for both is astronomical and rising all the time. I realize Biden is more moderate and less progressive, which is one of the reasons I like him, but if something is not done to take control of the cost of education and healthcare in this country, it will come to a breaking point, and there will be a financial meltdown. Americans should not be punished for wanting to better themselves through education or keeping themselves healthy. If you are not wealthy enough to pay for your education outright and are forced to take out student loans, then you basically mortgage your life for twenty-five to thirty years. If you develop a chronic medical condition or a major illness, you will probably face medical bills beyond your control. The average American is punished for attempting to have a better life, and that punishment has to come to an end. Democrats want to help, but most don’t really understand the struggle the average American faces, even if they claim they do. Republicans only seem to care about the wealthiest of Americans and pursue policies to make sure that the average American never gets ahead. Republicans seem to be scared to death that their major contributors might have to pay higher taxes and pay their fair share.

I don’t know what the answer is. I do know that we need greater regulation in healthcare and education costs. The government can and should help with both of these issues. It is not something that Democrats can afford to compromise over. The Senate needs to return the filibuster to requiring a person to actually stand up and talk to filibuster so that Congress can pass legislation. Congress has to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans so that they pay their fair share. They have to get a handle on the American healthcare crisis. Education must be made affordable, and student loan debt must be dealt with in a meaningful way for everyone. Equality laws must be put in place, and voting rights must be defended. There is too much at stake to allow Republicans to block or slow down legislation to keep themselves in power. The majority of Americans favor significant reforms, but you’d never know that if you listen to Republicans or the conservative news media like Fox News.

I have said this numerous times, but Republican politicians are some of the most repugnant Americans. As the Biden administration continues to support LGBTQ+ rights, Republican homophobia and transphobia are becoming very apparent. Republicans have been using transgender women as the scapegoat for their opposition to LGBTQ+ rights. They have repeatedly denigrated trans kids and student-athletes and accused the parents of trans people of being neglectful or abusive. First, thirteen Republican Senators voted against Pete Buttigieg’s confirmation as Secretary of Transportation. None, as far as I know, gave a reason, and when I wrote to my former senator Richard Shelby, who I have always been told has a gay son, to ask why he voted against Pete, I was given a non-answer about how he carefully considers all nominees he votes on. I believe that most of these thirteen senators, including Shelby, voted against Pete because of his sexuality. While silent homophobia is bad enough, the outspoken homophobia and transphobia of some Republicans in Congress are beyond abhorrent.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a joint hearing to confirm Surgeon General Nominee Dr. Vivek Murphy and Dr. Rachel Levine, who is transgender and is the current surgeon general for Pennsylvania. Most questions focused on the government’s response to COVID-19. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) decided to go on an anti-transgender tirade when questioning Dr. Levine, ranting about how Congress should ban gender-affirming health care for transgender kids instead of left up to families and doctors. Paul started by saying, “Genital mutilation has been nearly universally condemned. Genital mutilation has been condemned by the WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Population Fund.” He went on to say that genital mutilation is egregious because “it is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children.” If he wanted to compare bottom surgery to genital mutilation, he was badly mistaken. It’s almost unheard of for minors to get bottom surgery. 

In fact, everyone talks about puberty blockers being used so that trans youth can have more time to understand themselves before puberty permanently affects their bodies. Paul then turned to the subject of puberty blockers and cited the American College of Pediatricians, an SPLC designated hate group that promotes anti-LGBTQ+ bias. It is often confused with the American Pediatric Association, the real professional association for pediatricians that urges parents of trans kids to “listen, respect and support their child’s self-expressed identity.” Paul remarked that “80 to 90 percent” of children with gender dysphoria “will experience resolution,” a euphemism for stopping being transgender. This statistic is fake, but Paul said it anyway at a Senate hearing. Paul continually attacked Dr. Levine in the hearing.

If Paul wants to rant about genital mutilation in children, he should support the campaign against infant circumcision. I will not say that circumcision should be prohibitive for those of the Jewish faith; after all, Republicans are always claiming to believe in religious freedom. Circumcision took hold in the United States in the late 19th century, spread through the “modernization” of medicine. A few prominent doctors, including John Harvey Kellogg, advocated the surgery as a cure for paralysis, epilepsy, venereal disease, even mental illness. Throughout the Victorian era, it was extolled for its virtue of cleanliness and as a cure for masturbation. Circumcision is the only common genital mutilation in the United States. Most of the rest of the world has quit following the practice or never advocated it in the first place. If circumcision should continue, it should be reserved for cases of medical necessity.

Then there is the always “pleasant” Marjorie Taylor Greene, who held up all of Congress’s business in a destined-to-fail attempt to stop the LGBTQ+ Equality Act from passing the House. Greene called the Equality Act “DISGUSTING, IMMORAL, AND EVIL.” One of her colleagues found an excellent way to show her contempt for Greene’s opposition to LGBTQ+ rights. Rep. Marie Newman (D-IL) put up a transgender flag across the hall from Greene’s office so that she’d have to see it every day. Newman tweeted, “Thought we’d put up our Transgender flag so she can look at it every time she opens her door.” 

Greene, who the House voted to strip her of her committee assignments due to her support of violence against other House members, put up a hateful sign in response that said: “There are TWO genders: MALE & FEMALE. ‘Trust The Science!’” In a tweet, Greene noted that the Equality Act would “destroy women’s rights and religious freedoms.” She posted a video of herself smirking at the camera while slapping it on the wall. Making Greene’s sign even more insensitive is the fact that Newman’s daughter is transgender. On the House floor, she called her daughter the “strongest, bravest person I know.”

The Biden administration stated support of the Equality Act, a landmark piece of legislation that would establish LGBTQ+ civil rights protections in federal law. The measure passed the House yesterday. However, the Equality Act faces an obstacle in the Senate as Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) refused to co-sponsor the bill and won’t say why. She has previously co-sponsored it but apparently is pouting because the Human Rights Campaign endorsed her Democratic challenger in the last election. Collins claims to be “a strong believer in LGBTQ rights,” yet, she doesn’t want to give us the federal protections we deserve. 

Our community often continues to face discrimination, harassment, and violence at work, at school, and in public accommodations. H.R. 5 would amend existing federal civil rights laws to expressly include nondiscrimination protection based on sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), providing security and equality to LGBTQ+ Americans in accessing housing, employment, education, public accommodations, healthcare, and other federally funded services, credit, and more. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that employees are protected from discrimination based on sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Equality Act confirms the implications of Bostock for other discrimination laws, consistent with the President’s Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation, issued January 20, 2021, and further builds on Bostock, thereby securing such protections once and for all for LGBTQ+ Americans across Federal civil rights laws. Women also currently lack protection against sex discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs; the Equality Act would fill that gap in the law.

Finally, we have another reprehensible MAGAt in Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who recently used anti-gay stereotypes to explain her plan to vote against LGBTQ civil rights. Like Greene, Boebert is viciously – and proudly – anti-LGBTQ. During an unhinged rant full of fake claims about transgender pre-teens, Boebert managed to bring her transphobic comments around full circle to loop in an anti-gay stereotype that all gay men are feminine. She said she is raising her four sons “to be men,” and she is “proud of that.” The implication is that if you don’t meet her standard of masculinity, then you are not a man. I pity her sons to be raised in such a way. I was raised in much the same way and am still dealing with the psychological issues it caused.

It infuriates me that Paul, Greene, Boebert, or any other Congress member can make such hateful and discriminatory comments without any repercussions. Any member of Congress who uses such harmful language should be universally renounced and reprimanded for their derogatory and detrimental language concerning someone’s sexuality, race, or religion. We should hold our politicians to a higher standard. Minorities in this country have fought long and hard for equality and respect, yet lawmakers can make insensitive and disgusting comments like those mentioned above and face no consequences. Greene at least got removed from her committee assignments for previous conduct and remarks, but I doubt they will ever expel her for what she has done.  

Once again, Republicans have betrayed our country. Only seven Republicans voted guilty in the impeachment trial of the former president. The other 43 Republican Senators betrayed their oath of office to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Forty-nine abdicated their sworn oath a year ago when the former president tried to bribe a foreign president to interfere in the elections of the United States. They supported a president who for four years acted as if there was no limit on his authority. Then, they supported him when he tried to overturn an election by inciting a violent insurrection against the United States Congress. 

Worst of all, the defense for the former president put up no defense. The defense presented red herrings, slurs, and outright lies in their lack of understanding of the procedures of a Senate impeachment trial. They did not care to ask their client simple questions that could have provided evidence, which they did not because there was no evidence that the former president was not guilty. It should have been apparent to all Senators that the former president was so indefensible that all he could get to defend him were a group of ambulance-chasing personal injury lawyers who did not have the slightest understanding of impeachment proceedings or the U.S. Constitution. Their malpractice should be a disgrace to any lawyer in America.

Once again, we have been betrayed by the majority of Republicans in our federal government. How long will they be allowed to continue to betray us?

Republicans have a chance to take back their Party, but I doubt they will do that. The Republican Party leaders could take back the Party and get back to the traditional values of the Republican Party (even though I see much of their beliefs about social welfare and the economy as misguided). Republicans have been mostly reprehensible to me in the last 20 years, but at one time, they did believe in a platform and a set of standards. The fringe elements of the GOP date back much farther. In the 1950s, Republicans led by Senator Joseph McCarthy incited the Red Scare claiming there were communists everywhere and going on a witch hunt throughout the United States. We know now that Sen. McCarthy’s infamous “list,” which supposedly named communists who had infiltrated the heart of the United States government, was completely fabricated. On February 9, 1950, McCarthy told a crowd of 275 at the Ohio County Republican Women’s Club that the U.S. State Department was “thoroughly infested with communists” and brandished papers he claimed were a list of 57 such subversives. No such list ever existed. The Red Scare eventually ended when Republican Senators stood up to McCarthy. The Senate censured him but not before he had ruined thousands of lives with his accusations of communism.

McCarthy is just the most famous of the examples of Republican extremism gone too far. Another example happened on July 14, 1964, supporters of Barry Goldwater, who was about to accept the Republican nomination for president, unleashed a torrent of boos against New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller as he spoke at the Party’s national convention in San Francisco. Some might remember this event, but what is usually forgotten is why Rockefeller, who had lost the nomination to Goldwater, was standing behind the lectern in the first place. He was there to speak in support of an amendment to the party platform that would condemn political extremism. The resolution repudiated “the efforts of irresponsible extremist organizations,” including the Communist Party, the Ku Klux Klan, and the John Birch Society (JBS), a rapidly growing far-right grassroots group obsessed with the alleged communist infiltration of America.

The resolution failed, which testifies to the GOP’s long-standing reluctance to separate themselves from the extremists who congregate at its fringes. But the fact that such a resolution was debated at all—in such a visible venue, with such high-profile advocates—also says something about Republicans today. In the past, the GOP had a stronger core of resistance to extremism than it’s had in the era of the former president, QAnon, the Proud Boys, and the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene. The history of JBS shows us that this radical element has been a part of the Republican Party since the middle of the last century. In case you aren’t familiar with the John Birch Society, it is a radical right and far-right American political advocacy group supporting anti-communism and limited government. Canadian author Jeet Heer argued in The New Republic that while its influence peaked in the 1970s, “Bircherism” and its legacy of conspiracy theories have become the dominant strain in the conservative movement. Politico has asserted that the JBS began making a resurgence in the mid-2010s, and JBS itself has argued that it shaped the modern conservative movement, especially the former president’s administration.

The question of how Republicans deal with the extremists in their ranks is now more urgent than perhaps at any other point since the Birch Society’s heyday in the 1960s. So far, little has been done to uproot these fringe elements. Representative Kevin McCarthy and other GOP leaders have shown no interest in acting against House members who promoted or spoke at the rally ahead of the January 6 attack on the Capitol. And while GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans have criticized Greene—a relatively easy target—almost all have signaled that they will not vote in the impeachment trial to impose any consequences on the former president for his role in inciting the attack. McConnell sees himself in a desperate position to preserve the Republican Party and has warned Republican colleagues in private conference meetings the GOP faces a new “John Birch Society” problem that the Party must aggressively purge.

Those who care about the traditional values of the Republican Party could jointly stand together and denounce the previous president, his supporters in the Senate and the House, and the fringe extremists who have devoted themselves to perpetuating the previous president’s lies at any cost. If they voted to convict in the impeachment, denounce extremism, then they could have a chance to take back the Party. If they do not stand up for what is the right thing to do and convict the previous president, the fringe extremists that have plagued the Party since the middle of the last century will overtake the Party and drive it further to the right. The problem I see is that McConnell and others in the Republican Party have allowed the extremists to grow like a cancerous tumor. McConnell said himself that the “Loony lies and conspiracy theories are cancer for the Republican Party and our country.” The problem is that his analogy is too apt, and I think the cancerous tumor has been left untreated for so long until it is terminal. That was evident in Greene’s response. On Twitter, Greene wrote, “The real cancer for the Republican Party is weak Republicans who only know how to lose gracefully. This is why we are losing our country.”

The Republicans could take a stand during this impeachment trial. They could turn against the extremists in their Party. I realize that they will not eject any Congress members for their extremism, but they could ostracize the extremists for their actions. They could censure them, though I think that too is unlikely. What they can do is to give them so little influence in Congress that opponents can use it against them in their next election. Maybe once they do this and take back the Republican Party along more traditional lines without the extremism, they can finally come into the twenty-first century and possibly become decent human beings. Either way, I’d rather have the traditional business Republicans than the fringe elements who seem to control the Party today.

Are Republicans stupid, or have they used deception and lies for so long, they can no longer see reality? Senator Kevin Cramer was on MSNBC yesterday morning discussing the impeachment trial. He made numerous blatantly false claims, and when the anchors tried to correct him, he stuck to his guns, claiming they were incorrect. One of his lies (or just stupidity) was that Nancy Pelosi withheld the articles of impeachment until after the former president left office. As Stephanie Ruel pointed out, Pelosi was ready to send over the articles of impeachment on January 14 but was told by the Senate Parliamentarian that since the Senate had been dismissed, she could not send over the articles until the Senate reconvened. McConnell purposely delayed the trial of the former president so that he could make the argument that a former president cannot be tried after he left office. Cramer claimed that it would have taken unanimous consent to reconvene the Senate when anyone who was paying attention knows that the Senate could have bypassed this with the consent of the Senate Majority Leader (McConnell, at the time) and Senate Minority Leader (Schumer, at the time). Though Schumer agreed to reconvene the Senate, McConnell refused. Contrary to Cramer’s claim and that of the former president’s defense team, Pelosi was not responsible for the trial taking place after the former president left office. McConnell is entirely and wholly responsible for this and purposely held up the impeachment trial.

There is no doubt that the former president’s defense lawyers presented an unorganized and deceptive argument filled with lies, subterfuge, and fringe legal theories. Just about the only thing that they said truthfully was that Joe Biden won the election, fair and square and that the House Managers presented an excellent case for the constitutionality of an impeachment trial of a former president. The former president’s defense started on a strange note, with one of his lawyers, Bruce Castor, giving a meandering defense of the former president. He rarely referenced the former president or his behavior on January 6. At times, he appeared to be arguing for the former president’s free speech rights and against a partisan cycle of impeachments. The other defense lawyer, David Schoen, delivered a more forceful speech, accusing Democrats of trying to “disenfranchise” the former president’s supporters. It was a strange defense because the former president had spent the previous 77 days trying to disenfranchise millions of voters in states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Schoen also described the trial as an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of a “private citizen.” Schoen argued that the House had violated the former president’s due process rights by pursuing impeachment so quickly and that if the Senate went ahead with the trial, it would set a precedent under which the House could impeach any public official at any time after leaving office if control of Congress changed hands. In his argument, he suggested lawmakers had impeached the former president too soon and too late. The defense team’s arguments were often contradictory of one another, and even of their own arguments at times. Castor even argued for the criminal prosecution of the former president by the Justice Department, and Cramer repeated this argument on MSNBC. Of course, if the Justice Department did file charges against the former president for inciting an insurrection, the Republicans would go crazy calling it a Democratic witch hunt, even after they had argued for that exact thing to happen.

Numerous Republican Senators derided the defense presented by the former president’s lawyers. Ted Cruz said, “I don’t think the lawyers did the most effective job.” Cruz added that the lead House impeachment manager, Rep. Jamie B. Raskin, was “impressive.” Sen. John Cornyn, who is among Trump’s defenders on Capitol Hill, said that he has seen “a lot of lawyers and a lot of arguments” and that Castor’s “was not one of the finest I’ve seen.” Sen. Lindsay Graham said, “Well, I think I — I thought I — I really didn’t know — I thought I knew where he was going. And I really didn’t know where he was going.” Graham added that “nobody’s mind was changed one way or the other.” However, the House Managers changed one Republican Senator’s mind. Sen. Bill Cassidy was the only Republican Senator to switch his vote to support moving forward with the impeachment trial. Cassidy said after the first day of arguments, “The issue at hand, is it constitutional to impeach a president who’s left office? And the House managers made a compelling, cogent case, and the president’s team did not.” He said that the former president’s defense lawyers gave meandering opening statements that were incoherent and ineffective.

In yesterday’s presentation by the House Managers, a case was methodically made using the former president’s own words and tweets. I had several things I had to do yesterday afternoon, so I did not get to watch the House Managers’ complete presentation, but what I saw was so overwhelmingly convincing that I cannot understand how anyone can vote for acquittal. However, the sad thing is that most of the Republican Senators, if not all, recognize that what happened on January 6 was horrible, indefensible, and the fault of months of rhetoric by the former president culminating in his call for his supporters to march to the Capitol and present a show of strength. Yet, I do not expect the former president to be convicted. On Twitter, Senator Lindsey Graham called the yesterday’s presentation “offensive and absurd.” The only thing offensive about the presentation was the former president’s actions. There was nothing absurd about the evidence presented. It was terrifying. As Dave R commented yesterday, “They won’t convict because that makes them complicit. They would rather let the American voters fire their asses than grow a spine.” Just like the first impeachment trial, the vast majority of Republicans are not only making a mockery of the judicial/legislative process of impeachment, but they are making a mockery of the United States. Their inaction makes them just as culpable as the former president.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has been in the news a lot this last week as more and more evidence of her support for terror and extremism mounts. CNN reported that Greene “liked” a social media post that suggested “a bullet to the head” for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and seemed to approve of a suggestion that other prominent Democrats should be hanged, not to mention similar calls for the death of President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Greene has supported QAnon conspiracy theories about a global pedophilia cabal, approved of suggestions that mass shootings were staged, and made various racist comments. Furthermore, a video emerged of Greene harassing David Hogg, who survived the mass shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Valentine’s Day 2018. The video shows Greene following Hogg down the street in Washington, D.C., in March 2019, and badgering him, calling him a crisis actor paid by George Soros, telling him she was armed, demanding he talk to her, and calling him a coward. Hogg walked on without engaging her.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said yesterday in a press conference that, “Assigning her to the Education Committee when she has mocked the killing of little children at Sandy Hook Elementary School when she has mocked the killing of teenagers in high school at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school — what could they be thinking? Or is thinking too generous a word for what they might be doing? It’s absolutely appalling, and I think the focus has to be on the Republican leadership of this House of Representatives for the disregard they have for the death of those children.” Pelosi knows that Republicans have known for a while that they had trouble brewing with Marjorie Taylor Greene back in the summer of 2020 when she was running for Congress. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) called the QAnon supporter’s comments about Black people and Muslims “disgusting,” while a spokesman for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called them “appalling.” Scalise backed her primary opponent.

So, I am sure a lot of people have questions about how this woman could be elected. I have some thoughts on that because I have always lived in rural congressional districts. In most congressional races in rural districts, especially in the South, candidates often don’t get many campaign contributions. Many don’t even have websites, and if they do, they are sparse with their information. If multiple people are in a primary, I believe most people just pick the name they like best. Voters don’t really care who they are voting for in these primaries. When the general election comes around, they either vote for the one with the R after their name or the D after their name. As a general rule, I do vote for Democrats almost exclusively. Still, I’ve known a few Democrats I won’t vote for, and on rare occasions, I find someone in the Republican Party or a third party that I want to vote for, but I do my research on candidates. Most voters don’t research candidates. Ignorance by the voting public is especially problematic in rural areas where school systems are often the poorest. People are often uneducated or undereducated. Internet access is difficult to come by without paying exorbitant prices, making it difficult to research candidates. If they have a smartphone, they probably get most of their information from Facebook, which is misleading at best but is most often completely inaccurate.

While Greene was covered in the news as a QAnon candidate, Green and other Republicans tried to distance her from her QAnon conspiracy theories during the general election. Now the crazy is coming out in full force. She should have never been elected, but our previous president and his followers pushed for her election. To top that off, northwest Georgia, which Greene represents, is extremely conservative and backwoods and is over 84 percent white and nearly 57 percent blue-collar. The district leans heavily Republican. Donald Trump carried the district with over 75 percent of the vote in 2016, his eighth-best showing in the nation. Among Georgia’s congressional districts, only the neighboring 9th district is more Republican. Since its creation, no Democrat has managed as much as 30 percent of the vote. 

When I lived in Alabama, I lived at times in the 2nd Congressional and the 7th Congressional districts. The 7th Congressional district is the “Black Belt” district. The shape of the current district was largely established in 1992 when it was reconstituted as a majority-minority district under provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982 to encourage greater representation for minorities in Congress. Since its creation in 1843, a Republican has only represented the district once and for just one term from 1965-1967. In contrast, Alabama’s 2nd congressional district is majority white, and only one Democrat has represented the district since 1965. That one Democrat, former Montgomery mayor Bobby Bright, only served one term, and most recently switched parties and ran again and lost as a Republican candidate. The current representative from the 2nd congressional district is Barry Moore, who was elected for the first time in 2020. Moore is crooked to the core and has been under near-constant investigation for using his office as a legislator to get preferential contracts and for committing perjury in another corruption case. Moore’s opponent, a black woman named Phyllis Harvey-Hall, worked as an elementary school teacher for 25 years before her retirement. Her credentials and clean history of no criminal charges made no difference. She only received 34.7 percent of the vote (the minority population of the district is just 37 percent).

The House of Representatives tends to be more radical than the Senate because of the smaller and more localized districts. While there are moderates in the House, there are more members who are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. There are also more members who are highly unqualified to be in Congress. The Senate has its bad eggs too. Alabama’s new Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville could very well make history as the most unqualified and incompetent, at least in recent memory. There are some awful people in the Senate, such as McConnell, Graham, Hawley, Cruz, etc., but they at least have some brains, even if they continuously make stupid, hateful, and often contradictory statements. Tuberville, however, takes the cake. He was a football coach known for being extremely lazy. Every time it appeared that his job would become challenging, he left the coaching position.

Furthermore, he’s a crook who defrauded investors of millions during his ownership of an investment company. His partner in the venture was convicted of fraud and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Tuberville turned on him during the trial and escaped being indicted. The Tommy Tuberville Foundation has also been found to mismanage the funds and lining the pockets of Tuberville. He was only elected because he somehow gained our previous president’s support, probably because he sucked up to the former president the most. Voters did not care that he had zero experience that showed he would make a good politician. They cared nothing about his inability to understand the most basic of civic lessons. They cared that he ran as a Republican, was hateful, and had the support of a Republican president. One of his first acts as a Senator was to cast a treasonous vote to overturn a legitimate election.

The point I want to make is that the American electorate is composed of millions of uneducated individuals who are easily swayed by propaganda and hate. Politicians feed on their fears when they actually do tell constituents what their policies are. When NBC News asked Greene’s constituents about the awful things she has said and supported, they simply did not care. One woman talked about how Greene was bold and spoke her mind; we heard Trump supporters say the same thing. Another woman said she didn’t care what Greene had said or done; she still supported the congresswoman. These attitudes and the radicalization and encouragement of extremists led to the January 6 attack on the Capitol. A lack of education is a dangerous thing because it makes people too impressionable and gullible.