Indeed, any "magical moment" of unity is over, or in fact never was at all. If anyone thought the GOP would learn something from our near-brush with fascism, they are going to be disappointed.
The GOP in AZ is censuring party leaders who are (were) at odds with Trump. Far from being sadder but wiser after going "blue" in a general election for the first time in decades, they are doubling down.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/23/9599...cans-censure-party-leaders-at-odds-with-trump
House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump are already facing retribution from their constituents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/politics/republican-who-wont-vote-to-impeach-trump.html
Oh, and the more extreme elements of the Roman Catholic Church (the US Bishops, whose position that abortion should be illegal for everyone--including those who don't share their faith--is actually
at odds with most US Catholics) are debating whether they should refuse to give Biden, and any other pro-choice elected officials who are practicing Catholics, communion.
https://www.npr.org/sections/presid...ts-abortion-rights-heres-what-that-could-mean
Seriously, this latter thing is a very poor idea, because if it actually worked and brought Biden "to heel" on the issue, it would confirm the fear some have that a person of faith (or at least of a different faith than themselves) can't govern everyone fairly in a secular democracy. Imagine if Islamic leaders in the US were actively pressuring a Muslim POTUS to base their public policies on Shariah law, or if Mitt Romney had won and the Mormon leaders were pressuring him to adopt national prohibition laws.
And it's far from clear that the Senate Republicans won't simply filibuster any Democratic relief package.
The most reactionary elements in our society are in the process of doubling down.
Maybe Schumer can enforce the actual filibuster which requires the member stay at the podium talking constantly in order to filibuster.
I was wondering when and why that rule about filibustering ended, where it was mainly a delay tactic or an opportunity to engage in prolonged debate or bargaining about a bill, or if it succeeded in blocking legislation, it was severely inconvenient to the blocking party.
I remember learning about filibusters in high school civics class, and they told us that was how it worked. But when I was talking with my spouse (who is three years younger than I am) about this today, he'd never heard of it ever being any way other than it is now--with the majority party actually needing 60 votes to pass anything if the minority gives it the thumbs down (which they will generally do).
Looking it up, I am not misremembering what I learned so long ago, and it does appear that filibustering once involved a Senator holding the floor and speaking (not necessarily about anything germane) to delay or block a vote, but we never hear of it working this way nowadays. Now it's just an insta thumbs down.
Of course, the Democrats could vote to kill the filibuster entirely, which will surely come back to bite them on the rear later.