Tag: Blue states

THE COLD CIVIL WAR AMONG THE STATES Part 2

Some Republican states and right-wing activists are using the courts and vigilantism in efforts to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states.

SUMMARY: Some Republican states and right-wing activists are using the courts and vigilantism in efforts to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

As my previous post described, Republican (“red”) states are aggressively striving to enact extreme right-wing policies and trying to impose these policies on Democratic (“blue”) states. The result is a policy-driven cold civil war among the states. [1] The policy battles include access to abortion, gun laws, school vouchers, support for the fossil fuel industries, voting, treatment of immigrants, and support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and businesses’ environmental, social, and good governance (ESG) initiatives.

Right-wing and red states’ tactics include use of the courts and vigilantism.

For decades, the Republicans and their right-wing supporters have actively worked to transform the federal court system by getting right-wing judges appointed. Nowhere is their success more evident than at the Supreme Court where the six radical, reactionary, right-wing justices are ignoring the Constitution, as well as precedent in content and procedure. They consistently make political and ideological rulings, not rulings based on the law as the rule of law, as well as precedent and tradition, would dictate. Although judge shopping (i.e., steering a case to a judge or court that appears to lean in favor of the plaintiffs), is not a new practice, the right-wing activists have taken it to a new level – taking full advantage of the right-wing judges that have been appointed. Hedge funds and private equity firms, among other companies, have set up offices in Texas specifically to be able to take advantage of the supportive judges there.

Republican states have made it a practice to file court challenges to federal laws and regulations their political leaders object to in order to block their implementation nationwide. Texas alone filed 29 suits against Biden administration policies. Coalitions of red states have challenged policies discharging student debt, helping citizens register to vote, and requiring investment advisors to act in the best interest of their clients (rather than in their own self-interest).

Most dramatically, the Amarillo division (one of five locations) of the Northern District of Texas federal district court has only one judge, the notoriously right-wing ideological and political judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. Many major cases with national implications have been filed in this court because the plaintiffs know that Kacsmaryk will be the judge. He has unfailingly ruled in favor of Republican positions and right-wing policies. He has allowed right-wing lawsuits to go forward that many lawyers consider meritless. For example, in 2023, he presided over a lawsuit regarding the abortion drug mifepristone and issued a preliminary ruling suspending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s approval of the drug and its use nationwide. This was the first time a court had invalidated the approval of a drug without the FDA’s concurrence. [2]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the federal district courts in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. It is also known for its right-wing leanings. Consequently, 63% of all U.S. Chamber of Commerce lawsuits challenging federal regulations have been filed in the Fifth Circuit, even though the Chamber of Commerce has its headquarters in Washington, D.C. The court has ruled for the plaintiffs and against the government in 22 of 26 cases in the three-month window studied.

Vigilantism historically meant taking the law into one’s own hands and punishing someone for breaking a law even though one does not have the right or official power to do so. More broadly, and in the current context, it includes threats or use of force to enforce one’s own perception of social norms, one’s rights, and what is “right” or “fair” regardless of whether it is the law or not.

Right-wing politicians, now including the President, condone violence against political enemies and protect vigilantes from being punished for threats or violence against political enemies. The January 6 attack on the Capitol was vigilantism attempting to overthrow election results that were perceived to be “wrong.” National right-wing election-result-denying and voter suppression groups encourage vigilantes to patrol ballot drop boxes and polling places. Elected officials have been hounded out of their jobs by vigilantism, including Republican election administrators for example. Government officials have been effectively acting as vigilantes or encouraging vigilantism in their efforts to force states and communities to adhere to Trump regime values and policies. [3]

So-called stand your ground laws allow vigilantes to use violence to attack and kill people they perceive as a threat. Texas created abortion vigilantism by empowering anyone to sue and collect a bounty for reporting someone aiding or abetting an abortion. The threats, intimidation, and attacks on LGBTQ+ and transgender individuals, sometimes forcing them out of public institutions and public life, is vigilantism.

States, local communities, and others need to provide protection and support to targets of vigilantism. Law enforcement and in particular states’ Attorneys General need to establish units specifically to monitor and respond to vigilantism. States and local communities need to enact laws prohibiting the sharing of information or providing of assistance to out-of-state vigilantes, both individuals and other state governments.

My next post will present more strategies for blue states and cities to use in resisting and pushing back against the right-wing policies of Republicans.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1]      Dayen, D., 10/7/24, “The cold civil war,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-cold-civil-war/)

[2]      Ali Kanu, H., 10/15/24, “America’s judicial divisions,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/15/2024-10-15-americas-judicial-divisions/)

[3]      Michaels, J. D., & Noll, D. L., 10/10/24, “The political violence spilling out of red states,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/10/2024-10-10-political-violence-spilling-out-of-red-states/)

THE COLD CIVIL WAR AMONG THE STATES

Some Republican states, with Texas in the lead, are trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. The federal government is fanning the flames of this divisive extremism. Abortion, gun laws, public school funding, and even private companies’ behaviors are targets.

SUMMARY: Some Republican states, with Texas leading the way, are actively trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. The federal government is currently fanning the flames of this divisive extremism. Abortion, gun laws, public school funding, and even private companies’ behaviors are targets of these efforts.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

As my previous post documented, states’ policies have very significant effects on people’s well-being, including health and health care, safety from gun violence, economic well-being, civil rights, and even their longevity. It also documented the very significant differences in policies and outcomes between Democratic-controlled (“blue”) states and Republican (“red”) states.

As politics and policies have become more polarized between Republicans and Democrats, these state-level differences are becoming more dramatic. This trend has been exacerbated over the last 45 years because the federal government has abandoned its role of working to provide a consistent national economic safety net and to reduce economic disparities among states.

As partisanship has grown, right-wing policy extremism has become a goal of red states in and of itself. The federal government is currently fanning the flames of this extremism. Furthermore, red states are actively trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. This has created a cold civil war among the states. [1]

Red states, with Texas leading the way, are enacting aggressive and extreme right-wing policies and actively encouraging other states and communities to follow their lead. There’s even a competition of sorts among red states to enact the most aggressive and extreme right-wing policies. [2]

Texas and other red states are even trying to impose these policies on Democratic governments and private individuals beyond their borders. Abortion has been one focal point of these efforts. Texas and other red state haven’t been satisfied with banning abortions in their states; they have attempted to criminalize travel to other states to obtain an abortion and to ban the provision of abortion drugs across state lines. Texas has deputized its citizens by allowing them to sue anyone who aids or abets an abortion. Alabama has threatened felony charges against health care providers assisting patients with obtaining an out-of-state abortion. [3]

Gun laws have been another focus. Red states and red communities within blue states have asserted themselves to be “Second Amendment sanctuaries” where federal gun laws don’t apply. When their residents travel to other states, they have tried to make other states honor their laws that allow individuals to carry guns in public.

Red states have been expanding the funding for school vouchers, which allow parents to use public funding to pay tuition for a child attending a private school, including a religious school. They, and right-wing activists, have been pressuring the federal government to divert its education funding, including its funding for schools serving large populations of children from low-income families, to provide vouchers to parents to use for tuition at any school of their choice. [4]

Texas has used its economic leverage to coerce private companies. Its leverage comes from investing almost $400 billion held in various state-controlled pension funds and tens of billions more in various investment funds. It has pressured companies not to embrace policies or investment strategies supporting environmental, social, or good governance (ESG) goals. It has barred state investment in companies that encourage alternatives to oil and gas production and use.

The Texas Attorney General has sued other states to overturn their election results. He has sued hospitals in other states for allegedly providing telehealth services to transgender Texans.

Texas has also usurped some powers of the federal government. For example, it has evicted the federal border patrol from parts of the Mexico border and taken over border enforcement itself. It has invited other states to send law enforcement personnel and national guard troops to help it patrol the border. It, along with Florida, has shipped immigrants to blue states and cities, as much for political showmanship as anything else.

My next post will discuss how red states are using vigilantism and violence in the effort to spread their policies. It will also discuss the role of the judicial system and how blue states and cities can resist and push back.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1]      Dayen, D., 10/7/24, “The cold civil war,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-cold-civil-war/)

[2]      Hooks, C., 10/8/24, “Texas will mess with you,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/08/2024-10-08-texas-will-mess-with-you/)

[3]      Janssen, E., 10/9/24, “Red-state abortion tactics push into deep-blue Illinois,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/09/2024-10-09-red-state-abortion-tactics-deep-blue-illinois/)

[4]      Berkshire, J. C., 10/11/24, “Breaking the public schools,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/11/2024-10-11-breaking-public-schools/)

YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE

SUMMARY: State policies and programs make a real difference in people’s lives and even in their longevity. They’re more important than ever given the dysfunction of our federal government. There are stark differences between the policies and programs of Republican-controlled states and Democratic ones that affect access to healthcare, workers’ incomes, and overall well-being.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

States’ policies have very significant effects on people’s health, safety, financial security, and even their longevity. With our federal government so dysfunctional right now, there’s a lot of very valuable work that can and is being done at the state and local levels including:

  • Blocking the impact of big money in elections by enacting campaign financing systems that match small donations with public funds (see this previous post for more details), and
  • Tackling the affordability crisis by reducing wage theft, increasing the minimum wage, supporting unions, making taxes fairer, subsidizing child care and health care, and enacting paid family leave (see this previous post for more details).

As politics and policies have become more polarized between Republicans and Democrats, a natural experiment has been taking place among the states. Over the last 30 years, a state government’s partisan control has become an increasingly strong indicator of the policies it will adopt or not adopt. This trend has been amplified by the decreasing number of states where government control is or has been shared between Republicans and Democrats. Gerrymandering of state legislative districts is partly to blame. Aggressive and extreme policy proposals from right-wing funded think tanks and advocacy groups, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), have also contributed to the widening differences among states’ policies. [1]

The federal government used to work to narrow differences among the states but now is fueling a widening of the gaps among states. From the New Deal in the 1930s through the 1970s, the federal government worked actively and effectively to shrink the significant economic gaps between richer and poorer states. It provided financial assistance to state governments and residents, including supporting a safety net for low-income families and workers who fell on hard times. However, starting in 1980 and with the election of Republican president Reagan, the federal government reversed its role and has been fostering a widening of the gaps among the states.

Democratic controlled states tend to have stronger worker protections and safety nets than Republican controlled states. They also have better health and well-being among their residents. Republican states have, for example:

  • Higher rates of residents without health insurance, the ten worst health care systems in the country, and lower life expectancies.
  • Ten of the twelve states with the highest rates of smoking-related cancer.
  • Ten of the twelve states with the highest rates of obesity.
  • Eight of the ten states with the most Covid deaths.
  • Lower minimum wages. Of the twenty states that have the lowest minimum wage (i.e., the federal $7.25 per hour), thirteen are Republican.
  • Weaker gun violence prevention laws and higher rates of gun deaths.
  • Weaker protections for civil rights, including for LGBTQ individuals.

On the other hand, the thirteen states with paid parental leave all have Democrats in control. Notable differences between Republican controlled states and Democratic controlled states are evident in environmental, labor, tobacco, and, of course, voting and election policies.

As partisanship has grown, right-wing policy extremism has become a goal in and of itself. And Republican states, now abetted by the federal government, are actively trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. In effect, the U.S. now has a cold civil war among the states. [2] (More on this is a subsequent post.)

A case study comparing Oklahoma and Connecticut serves to highlight the differences in policies and outcomes. [3] In 1959, Oklahoma (OK) and Connecticut (CT) had nearly identical life expectancies and political and policy climates that weren’t that far apart. Between 1970 and 2014, researchers found that Democratic CT had passed the most progressive policies among the states, while Republican OK had passed the most conservative ones. Connecticut invested in healthcare expansion, paid leave, and tax credits for working families. Oklahoma cut taxes and its social safety net. Its 2024 state budget was 12% less than in 2000 after adjusting for inflation and population growth.

As a result, today, the gaps are dramatic:

Metric                                Oklahoma (Republican)                     Connecticut (Democratic)

Life expectancy [4]           61.2 years (47th in nation)                 65.9 years (7th in nation)

Medicaid expansion         Rejected until voters demanded it      First to expand after federal law passed

Minimum wage                 $7.25                                                   $16.94

Paid family leave              Not available                                      Enacted

Paid sick leave                  Not available                                      Enacted

Earned Income
       Tax Credit                  Not available                                      Enacted

Child well-being
        ranking (2024)          46th among the states                         8th among the states

Food-insecure children    24%                                                     17%

Despite one of the highest rates of child food insecurity in the country, in 2024, OK rejected $48 million of federal funding to provide food to low-income children in the summer when free meals at school are not available. (Twelve other Republican states also rejected this federal assistance.)

OK has a part-time legislature, which has fewer staff now than in 1979. Therefore, it often relies on industry lobbyists to draft legislation and on model legislation from conservative advocacy groups like ALEC. For example, ALEC’s proposed bills to cut or ban health care services and other programs have been passed.

The comparison of OK and CT provides a stark example of the differences in state-level policies being promoted by Republicans and Democrats and the real and serious effects of these differences. It also underscores how important state policies and programs are, and reminds us all to set aside some time and energy to advocate for good state (and local) policies and programs. After all, they directly affect access to healthcare, paychecks, safety, and affordability.

For lots of good news, much of it at the state and local levels,see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1]      Dayen, D., 10/7/24, “The cold civil war,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-cold-civil-war/)

[2]      Dayen, D., 10/7/24, see above

[3]      Thomhave, K., 10/7/24, “The chasm between Oklahoma and Connecticut,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-chasm-between-oklahoma-connecticut/)

[4]      World Population Review, retrieved from the Internet on 5/14/26, “Life expectancy by state 2026,” (https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/life-expectancy-by-state)