What the End of Democratic Rule Really Means | Harper's Magazine

Sign in to access Harper’s Magazine

Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?

  1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
  2. Select Email/Password Information.
  3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.

Locked out of your account? Get help here.

Subscribers can find additional help here.

Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!

Get Access to Print and Digital for $23.99.
Subscribe for Full Access
Get Access to Print and Digital for $23.99.
[Washington Babylon]

What the End of Democratic Rule Really Means

Adjust

“Finally Americans will get the opportunity to see what it looks like when a filibuster-proof majority is squandered,” I wrote here last July, after Al Franken was declared the victor in Minnesota, thereby giving Democrats their sixtieth vote in the senate. But who knew how quickly they might squander it?

Last night, Jon Stewart offered this analysis of what it would mean if Martha Coakley loses to Scott Brown: “Democrats will only then have an 18-vote majority in the Senate. Which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate when he did whenever the fuck he wanted to.”

And this also from Stewart: “It’s not your fault Democratic Party leadership — no one should have raised the bar of expectations for you. We should just leave the bar on the ground…[and] wait for you to trip.”

More from

More