Devolving into a simple conflict: powerful vs. powerless

Here is the lead to today's Dana Milbank column in the Washington Post:

Texas this week showed us what a post-democracy America would look like.

Thanks to a series of actions by the Texas legislature and governor, we now see exactly what the Trumpified Republican Party wants: to take us to an America where women cannot get abortions, even in cases of rape and incest; an America where almost everybody can openly carry a gun in public, without license, without permit, without safety training and without fingerprinting; and an America where law-abiding Black and Latino citizens are disproportionately denied the right to vote.

The use of three specific examples is powerful and a vivid demonstration of "the rule of three," where three examples seems to be the right number of supporting details.

One example or incident is clearly not enough to establish a pattern. Two examples could simply be coincidence. Four examples starts to feel like piling on, though there is a strategy for supporting a claim that relies on a LONG list of examples (indicating overwhelming evidence).

Milbank argues that these Texas laws are undemocratic by citing Texas state polls that indicate that none of these laws enjoys the approval of the people who live in the state. That is frustrating if you disagree with the laws and cheering if you do approve. After all, who doesn't like a good underdog story, where good triumphs over evil despite being faced with overwhelming opposition?

The problem lies in whether those Texas laws are on the side of good. And good is clearly relative. I have no doubt that many who support those restrictive (or expansive, in the case of guns) laws have their own reasons. Few people do not act in self-interest.

Of course, that means we must cast Texas white Republicans as the underdogs, and that characterization doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

But here's how idealistic I remain, despite years of disappointments: Democracy CAN work, but only if voters participate and -- this is key -- appreciate the power of people to make changes. If voters become cynical and simply shrug and ignore government and more powerful people creating laws that they disagree with -- after all, what's the point of fighting the money and privilege? -- then the anti-democratic tendencies of many states will continue.

When the dog finally catches the car it is chasing, what then? (The Taliban suddenly NOT being at war after two decades and needing to run a country is a classic example.)

I keep thinking that elections and representatives needing to respond to their constituents' needs will eventually triumph. 

I also keep thinking that politics is all about power, but that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," and that the more brazen the power play, the more voters will object. Perhaps there is a line that even the most suppressed and confused and isolated voters just can't stomach.

Have some politicians crossed that line? Is anyone paying attention?