By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, speaking on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, stated that he hasn’t ruled out gerrymandering in response to Texas’s push for partisan redistricting. Pritzker, echoing Governor Newsom of California, indicated a willingness to “fight fire with fire” against aggressive redistricting efforts. This stance comes as Texas Democrats fled the state to block a redistricting vote, with Pritzker offering Illinois as a “safe haven.” Pritzker emphasized the need to preserve democracy, particularly in light of actions taken by the Trump administration.
Read the original article here
JB Pritzker refuses to rule out gerrymandering in Illinois because GOP has ‘thrown the rule book out’.
It seems like the political landscape is shifting, and the gloves are off. The core sentiment emerging is a frustration with the current state of affairs, particularly the perception that the Republican Party has abandoned the established rules of the game. This has led to a widespread feeling that Democrats need to adopt a more aggressive approach. The implication is clear: if the opposing side isn’t playing by the rules, there’s little point in adhering to them oneself, especially when the stakes are so high. It’s a sentiment born out of a perceived existential threat to democracy, where the usual decorum seems like a weakness.
The core argument focuses on gerrymandering, a practice where electoral district boundaries are manipulated to favor one political party over another. The discussion pivots on whether Democrats should engage in this practice, given that Republicans are already widely seen as having mastered it. Many feel that Pritzker’s unwillingness to rule out gerrymandering is a positive sign, indicating a willingness to fight fire with fire. This reflects a pragmatic approach – a realization that in a situation where one side is already bending or breaking the rules, sticking to them rigidly puts the other side at a disadvantage.
The discussion highlights the historical context, suggesting that Democrats have been playing fair while Republicans have consistently employed aggressive tactics. The argument posits that Democrats have significant gains to be made by leveraging the same strategies. There’s a strong belief that the power dynamic can be shifted. The key takeaway is that the current situation necessitates a change in strategy. The concept of fighting for the “moral high ground” is viewed as a luxury that can no longer be afforded. The idea is that Democrats need to fight back with the same intensity, using all available means to protect their interests and, ultimately, democracy itself.
The tone is one of urgency and frustration. The discussion underscores the importance of local action, given the perceived inaction of national Democratic leadership. There’s a sense of wariness towards bipartisanship, which is seen as ineffective in the current climate. The central theme is power, a battle of numbers and resources. The argument is that Democrats have the potential to flip the script. The strategy is not just to match Republican gains, but to surpass them. The aim is to level the playing field, correct past imbalances, and finally begin to establish power and political will.
There is a widespread feeling that Pritzker’s stance on gerrymandering reflects a growing understanding of the stakes at hand. The debate is no longer about the morality of gerrymandering, but about the need to protect the principles of a future democracy. The sentiment leans towards a forceful, proactive response, where Democrats should aggressively pursue the advantage. Illinois, with its history of gerrymandering, is seen as a potential leader in this shift. The overall message is that it’s time for Democrats to move decisively, to match the energy of the opposition, and to secure a future. It is the only way to stop what is seen as the inevitable destruction of democracy.