site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   23926 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Regarding the latest executive order re: independent agencies, I'm struggling to understand why conservatives might think this is a good idea long term. Is the plan to just never lose/hold an election again? It seems like trump is massively expanding the scope of executive power versus judicial/legislative power to the point where any president with more than 41 votes in the senate can do essentially whatever they want, with the sole exception of raising non-tariff taxes. Given that its easier to create than to destroy [edit: this was a type, I meant "easier to destroy than to create"], that's of course a benefit for anti-welfare conservatives... but direct presidential command over regulation combined with the stance that the president is beholden to nothing but the supreme court seems like a perfect recipe for vindictive actions against corporations and industries that the president doesn't like. And considering the next democratic president is probably going to look much more like the bernie wing of the party than the obama/biden wing of the party, that's a recipe for economic disaster.

Necessary disclaimer: I'm a trump-hating neoliberal.

I am often puzzled by the comments here talking about how "Trump is not a very smart guy" or how his politics are "difficult to understand" or simply nonexistent because from what I can see he is easily one of the smartest/canniest political operators currently active with some of the most scrutable politics of any elected head of state in recent memory. But then I read a line like...

Given that its easier to create than to destroy...

...some of those earlier comments start to make sense more. I would posit that the reason you (and others here) seem to find Trump (and his supporters) so difficult to understand, is that Trump is operating on a wildly different set of assumptions than you are.

That was a typo lol. I mean, "easier to destroy than to create." Actually that plays into why I believe trump is stupid-- it's really easy to see how the bulk of his success is just the short-term gains from looting complex systems he lacks the intelligence to create. I won't dispute calling him "canny" because he really does have an exceptionally refined sort of animal cunning where he understands what people want on an emotional level... but I would define intelligence as either the general intelligence score or the capacity for abstract thought, and trump's mode of speech alone disproves him possessing those.

They elsewhere clarified that that was a typo, I believe.

"Independent" agencies are not so, and the vast majority have been captured by their permanent bureaucrats who lean heavily left. Plus they are all arguably (and the argument against this argument is pretty weak) unconstitutional anyways.

Whether Republicans lose sometime in the future is irrelevant. This is ending the "heads I win, tails you lose" advantage Democrats have enjoyed at these agencies for the better part of half a century.

Full text cause I don't see it's linked yet: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/

Here are my thoughts on this. US Congress writes the Laws. But Congress is (1) Lazy and (2) are Accustomed to Trust "Experts" and (3) it's Hard to Wrangle 538 Congressperson, so Congress created "Independent Agencies" that has Regulatory Powers. The Crux is (1) "What are Regulatory Powers?" and (2) "Who should/would Enforce these Non-Congress-Originated but Congress-Implicitly-Approved Regulatory Powers?".

Now if Congress wants to Rein in Trump, all they have to do is (1) make clearer Laws on Regulatory Delegation of Powers + Enforcement Mechanism, or (2) if they want to go back to the Old Implicit/Nebulous Ways, Impeach and Remove Trump from Office. This obviously Runs into the Category of "Simple, but Hard" things to do ("cut back on food + exercise more" is an example in this category for me).

I want to Note that it seems the Current Law is not very Clear, even in this substack explaining the situation that was linked on howappealing. Here's a quote:

But the general understanding has long been that [Independent Agencies] are special, in the sense that they are “independent” of the Commander-in-Chief.

Note the word "understanding". Presidents and Congress and Lawmakers and Lawyers and Agencies and Experts etc. has kept Passing the Buck on making things Clear. And there is something to be said about "the Tyranny of Structureless", which can be neatly summarized as:

this apparent lack of structure often disguised an informal, unacknowledged, and unaccountable Leadership that was all the more pernicious because its very existence was denied.

Is what Trump doing Alarming? Yeah? Probably? But to me, currently, the More Alarming thing Continues to be Congress and their Dereliction of Duty in Producing Laws. All the Criticism of Judges "Legislating from the Bench" or Presidents being "Unilateral" are just Downstream Effects of Congress Not Upholding their End of the Constitutional Order. The People's Will and Need for Legislation are Not Satisfied by Congress's Slowness, so the Outlet is to naturally find Champions that would Do what the People want, whether that's through the Executive or the Judiciary.

ps: tried to get chatgpt to uppercase the first letter of some words like old political texts but didn't really work out :/

ps: tried to get chatgpt to uppercase the first letter of some words like old political texts but didn't really work out :/

Where is the gpt text?

I had to recreate it but chatgpt's output just uppercase almost all the words https://chatgpt.com/share/67b8d1a9-6784-8003-a263-feb006d87a81

ps: tried to get chatgpt to uppercase the first letter of some words like old political texts but didn't really work out :/

I thought it worked out great! I loved reading it. Reminds me of the Terra Ignota series.

hahaha, yeah, had to do it manually. chatgpt just uppercase almost all the words https://chatgpt.com/share/67b8d1a9-6784-8003-a263-feb006d87a81

From the article:

the so-called unitary executive theory, which states that the president has the sole authority over the executive branch

I straightforwardly thought this was always the case. I thought the current controversy around Trump was about whether his actions trampled on the domains of the other branches.

This seems like a bog-standard Republican move to gut anything that might inhibit business/financial elites as executed through the Trump admin's position that the president is functionally an elected dictator. They're probably not thinking that long term, but if they are I would hazard to guess they are wagering on an emerging Republican majority an extremely favorable position on the Supreme Court plus an electoral system/political geography heavily biased in their favor to prevent the Democrats from exercising power the same way the next time they win the presidency. A lot of Trump's ambitious executive behavior is predicated on an extremely deferential Congress, which a Democratic president is unlikely to get.

It seems like trump is massively expanding the scope of executive power versus judicial/legislative power to the point where any president with more than 41 votes in the senate can do essentially whatever they want, with the sole exception of raising non-tariff taxes.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, and much of this thread goes over my head, but this is one point in particular that I don't understand: how is it possible for the executive, through an executive order, to expand the scope of executive power? Either the executive has the power to declare and enforce whatever this EO declares, in which case he's just practicing power he had by nature of being the executive, or the executive lacks that power, and this EO is just unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, to be struck down by courts or by Congress impeaching him.

I'd always thought EOs were essentially pieces of paper with funny markings on them that the executive likes and his underlings are supposed to pay attention to if they want to please the boss. If the POTUS has the power to bootstrap the executive branch to dominating the other branches of government merely through an executive order, then that seems like a major loophole in the Constitution, which makes me think I'm missing something.

The supreme court could write an opinion that said 'we are kings now'. Now, if that happened, we'd all ignore it, and appoint a new supreme court. But there's something in between that and what they're currently doing that isn't transparently unconstitutional but would simultaneously be concerning if you liked the way the government currently works. Congress could do similar, eg court packing. One might view executive orders in the same way - some are definitely constitutional but still might look like they're heading in a bad direction, others might be unconstitutional by current precedent but who knows what SCOTUS will do, and if SCOTUs rules one way then that would, in practice, expand the power.

others might be unconstitutional by current precedent but who knows what SCOTUS will do, and if SCOTUs rules one way then that would, in practice, expand the power.

Thanks, this explanation in particular makes a lot of sense to me.

If the POTUS has the power to bootstrap the executive branch to dominating the other branches of government merely through an executive order, then that seems like a major loophole in the Constitution, which makes me think I'm missing something.

The thing you're missing is that Congress kept delegating rule-making authority to "independent agencies" under the executive, while also creating rules the executive branch had to follow while exercising the delegated authority. The fear from those who are concerned by this move is that Trump will keep the delegated rule-making authority, while ignoring the rules for exercising that delegated authority.

In theory, if Congress wanted to, they could seize power back with unvetoable majorities in the House and Senate, and remove both the delegated authority and the rules for exercising it. But with the split between MAGA and non-MAGA Republicans, and Democrats, that is unlikely to happen. So the end result is a massive power grab for the executive branch because of unwillingness to act on the part of Congress and the Courts.

The thing you're missing is that Congress kept delegating rule-making authority to "independent agencies" under the executive, while also creating rules the executive branch had to follow while exercising the delegated authority. The fear from those who are concerned by this move is that Trump will keep the delegated rule-making authority, while ignoring the rules for exercising that delegated authority.

I see, so the way you're describing it, it seems like it's the chickens coming home to roost. Definitely concerning. I can't say I blame him for doing this, though. It sounds like he just picked up a hundred dollar bill off the floor that all the other POTUSs before him just walked past, out of respect for norms or whatever. I see the OP's point now, though, that he's loading a weapon that his enemies could wield in the future. Perhaps he figures that that long-term downside risk is worth it for the power he'll get to wield in his final 4 years in office (and perhaps his life, given his age). Probably irresponsible for a party leader, but pretty in character for him, by my lights.

No this is all rather nonsensical. First, congress delegates to many agencies including non independent. The grants to both are governed by the same law and cover significant activity. Indeed many of the most relevant are not independent agencies though of course some are.

The only real difference between independent and dependent agencies is whether the president can remove people at the agencies at will. That’s it. There aren’t other special rules that those independent agencies have to abide by that dependent agencies do not. They all must abide by the APA. So if the President smashes independent agencies the only difference is who is making the decision; not the process for decision making.

Except that clearly the APA would still apply to the president. The believers of the independent executive need to argue what is different about the president having the power and the answer seems to be “there might be more change in regulations”

If the power was delegated to the executive branch, this is not a power grab for the executive branch. It is perhaps a "power grab" by one part of the executive branch (the President) from another (the independent agencies). The problem with this theory is that the Constitution does not contemplate a part of the executive branch independent of the President.

The constitution is just a piece of paper (although one that confers quite a bit of legitimacy if you observe the proper forms). Watch rules for rulers or play some Crusader Kings to understand the actual nature of power.

If you have enough loyal warriors, you can do whatever you want. Following democratic norms should be best understood as a method of ritualized warfare-- of both parties gathering and displaying the people under their banners, so that the other party might be intimidated by the size and strength of their army and let them take power without a fight.

I'm familiar with the concepts and metaphor you mention here. Could you outline how that applies to this situation? The Constitution is just a piece of paper, much like Executive Orders by the POTUS are - they only mean things insofar as people behave as if they mean things. The POTUS can ignore the Constitution, and his underlings can ignore the POTUS's EOs, and in either case, they'll face consequences only to the extent that people who have the power to inflict consequences on them choose to exercise this power. Is the contention here that Trump is such a cult of personality that this particular EO wouldn't hold up in court or any Constitutional scrutiny, but Trump's underlings will just follow it anyway? If so, it seems that the danger is in Trump being such a cult of personality, rather than any particular EO he might write.

It's not about having a cult of personality-- it's about being able to reward favored underlings and protect them from retaliation. Basic feudal-contract type stuff. The more power a president has over their bureaucracy, the more loyalty they can engineer their bureaucracy to have.

how is it possible for the executive, through an executive order, to expand the scope of executive power?

Because the executive is not always exercising the full scope of his powers to their fullest extent at all times, and the constitution and laws are not all-encompassing rulesets. If and when the President tries to do something new, we have to figure out whether that's OK or not.

Given that its easier to create than to destroy,

For the president, it is definitely easier to destroy than it is to create. Especially if the president can fire whoever he wants to fire.

Maybe it is harder for congress to destroy than it is to create, but that is because congress needs a degree of consensus. The president does not.

Maybe it is harder for congress to destroy than it is to create, but that is because congress needs a degree of consensus. The president does not.

No, unfortunately (for me) the create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere. Congress needs consensus between both houses to pass laws, but on the contrary either house can defect from equilibrium to shut down the government. That's a structural advantage for conservatives that can't be legislated or protested away.

I admit-- part of my frustration with my own party is that they seem completely ignorant of the fact that you need hard power to control the government. It's not enough to get 51% of the poorest people on your side when the 49% richest can take their ball and go home. That's why I'm in favor of completely abandoning the old as a voting block-- the only thing we need to do to kill social security is nothing. Then if republicans target democratic priorities (welfare for the poor, cultural projects) they can enforce MAD even with a minority government. Given trump's expansion of power, I think a future democratic president could also do a lot to obstruct efforts at combatting anti-rich and anti-old paramilitaries. Landowners fundamentally have higher security needs, which makes the greatest strength of the republican party also their Achilles heel.

Anti-old paramilitaries? Welfare for the old has been a core Democratic policy for nearly 100 years at this point, and old women are arguably their most loyal demographic. Add in the medical practitioners and their auxiliaries whose jobs are to care for the old in some variety and you have a massive chunk of the Democratic coalition.

Democrats at best are every bit as much a party of Gerontocracy as the Republicans are, if not moreso.

No, unfortunately (for me) the create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere. Congress needs consensus between both houses to pass laws, but on the contrary either house can defect from equilibrium to shut down the government. That's a structural advantage for conservatives that can't be legislated or protested away.

Ok, but you haven't actually given a reason why your rule works everywhere, in particular for the president. I do agree the rule holds for congress, but you aren't arguing in OP that "create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere", you are arguing it specifically for the president without any support. Why exactly does it hold for the president? Your justification given for the "create-vs-destroy rule" clearly does not apply to the president - the president is one person. There is no barrier of consensus to for one person.

Then if republicans target democratic priorities (welfare for the poor, cultural projects) they can enforce MAD even with a minority government.

Republicans can target these priorities because, if it holds up in court, a president can now just fire anyone who works at a government agency. That clearly structurally favors those who do not like government agencies, the GOP. The president cannot just create a new government agency, not to the extent he can just destroy one. The president still needs congress for funding of that agency.

Given trump's expansion of power, I think a future democratic president could also do a lot to obstruct efforts at combatting anti-rich and anti-old paramilitaries. Landowners fundamentally have higher security needs, which makes the greatest strength of the republican party also their Achilles heel.

There isn't a meaningful difference in voting patterns for landowners or people with money and people without. Suburban voters were split almost 50:50 between trump and kamala.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1535295/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-income-us/ https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/nx-s1-5198616/2024-presidential-election-results-republican-shift

No there are not paramilitary groups in the US posing any threat to landowners, or the rich, or old people.

You are not engaging with reality here, the world you are describing does not exist.

Ok, but you haven't actually given a reason why your rule works everywhere, in particular for the president. I do agree the rule holds for congress, but you aren't arguing in OP that "create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere", you are arguing it specifically for the president without any support. Why exactly does it hold for the president? Your justification given for the "create-vs-destroy rule" clearly does not apply to the president - the president is one person. There is no barrier of consensus to for one person.

Presidents need congress to fund their projects and the courts to prosecute people acting against them.

Republicans can target these priorities because, if it holds up in court, a president can now just fire anyone who works at a government agency. That clearly structurally favors those who do not like government agencies, the GOP. The president cannot just create a new government agency, not to the extent he can just destroy one. The president still needs congress for funding of that agency.

Yes, and that's a structural weakness of the democratic party that can only be solved via completely changing their electoral coalition. The democrats need to abandon some group of people that relies on the government to the republicans, while pulling in an anti-government faction. My personal preference would be for democrats to totally abandon old people in favor of a stronger appeal to young people. Then democrats would be able to hold social security and medicare hostage against fulfilling priorities like student loan forgiveness and climate action. And the more power gets taken away from old people, the less their cultural conservatism would hold sway over the american public.

There isn't a meaningful difference in voting patterns for landowners or people with money and people without. Suburban voters were split almost 50:50 between trump and kamala.

The democrats win the urban core, while the republicans win the rural areas. That is to say: the people who literally own more land go for republicans.

You are not engaging with reality here, the world you are describing does not exist.

I know it doesn't exist-- yet. I'm speaking of the political moves the democrats should make in the next two and four years to take advantage of trump's double-edged sword.

Presidents need congress to fund their projects and the courts to prosecute people acting against them.

These are reasons that do not support your position that it is easier to create than to destroy, they support the position that it is easier to destroy than to create.

  • Funding projects is creation. If the president needs congress to fund their projects, that is a barrier to creation.
  • Unfunding projects is destruction. If the president does not need congress to defund projects, then there is no barrier to destruction.

If the president has a barrier to create, but no barrier to destroy, then that should lead you to believe that it is easier for the president to destroy than it is to create. That is the opposite of your position.

Yes, and that's a structural weakness of the democratic party that can only be solved via completely changing their electoral coalition. The democrats need to abandon some group of people that relies on the government to the republicans, while pulling in an anti-government faction.

Ok if the democrats need to completely change their electoral coalition to solve this, then that seems like a pretty good indication that this change really does not favor the democrats. Helping people with the government is a pretty core belief of progressivism. If the democrats abandon that position, then to what extent are they democrats anymore?

I don't think that structural weakness can actually be solved by the democrats. The democrats are the progressive party, and progressivism is about change. Which happens though reform, or action, or creation. If the president can now unilaterally stop and / or destroy federal programs, then that does not favor reform or action or creation.

Yes there are some conservative oxen that can be gored by a left wing president. But structurally there will always be more progressive oxen, the progressives are the ones interested in change and expansion.

The democrats win the urban core, while the republicans win the rural areas. That is to say: the people who literally own more land go for republicans.

A man that owns an acre in the urban core is just as much a property owner as a man who owns 100 acres in Nebraska. Whose land is worth more? Where do the rich reside? In the urban core. Who has greater security needs - the property owner in the urban core, or the property owner in Nebraska?

These are reasons that do not support your position that it is easier to create than to destroy, they support the position that it is easier to destroy than to create.

Uh, I just realized I stupidly mistyped this in the first comment and then didn't pick up on it later. It's harder to create than to destroy; we agree on this point.

Helping people with the government is a pretty core belief of progressivism. If the democrats abandon that position, then to what extent are they democrats anymore?

The democrats aren't the "progressive" party. They're the urban party. Progressivism is highly adaptive for urbanites, so urbanites adopt progressivism and demand democratic leaders. It's not the other way around, where progressive leaders convert urbanites.

And in any case, progressivism isn't about "helping people" in general, it's about helping specific people, who by some calculus deserve that help. All the democrats have to do is change the calculus... drop the expensive, economically useless, socially conservative old people, pull in the technocratic, culturally liberal tech bros. I'm not saying they will do that, but it wouldn't be a huge ideological stretch if they did.

A man that owns an acre in the urban core is just as much a property owner as a man who owns 100 acres in Nebraska. Whose land is worth more? Where do the rich reside? In the urban core. Who has greater security needs - the property owner in the urban core, or the property owner in Nebraska?

You're probably thinking in terms of burglars and murder statistics. Start thinking in terms of organized political violence instead.

You're probably thinking in terms of burglars and murder statistics. Start thinking in terms of organized political violence instead

In practice, major rural landowners need state protection from one group and one group only- communist revolutionaries. Other groups tend to side with rural landowners, maybe in exchange for payment.

The democrats aren't the "progressive" party. They're the urban party. Progressivism is highly adaptive for urbanites, so urbanites adopt progressivism and demand democratic leaders. It's not the other way around, where progressive leaders convert urbanites.

The democrats are definitely the progressive party. Their policy is progressive. The mechanism they arrive at their progressivism doesn't really concern my argument. But if we agree then I don't care to dispute it.

You're probably thinking in terms of burglars and murder statistics. Start thinking in terms of organized political violence instead.

What evidence is there that indicates that the US is headed towards organized political violence? Why would I think in a frame that doesn't accurately reflect the world? No, I am not going to think in those terms, and I find the idea ridiculous.

The democrats are definitely the progressive party. Their policy is progressive. The mechanism they arrive at their progressivism doesn't really concern my argument. But if we agree then I don't care to dispute it.

I know we're arguing about definitions, which is the lowest form of argument, but I still think it's worth trying to get you to see my side. When you say, "the democrats are... the progressive party," you're taking a descriptive view of the ways the democrats behave. And it's accurate! But it's also missing the point. It's like calling a motorcycle gang a "motorcycle helmet wearing gang". Democrats adopt progressivism because it is useful to them-- because they have particular common needs the ideology serves. They would still be (mostly) bound together if they found a different way of addressing the same needs. That's why I call democrats the urban party-- because their needs and desires are fundamentally a result of what urbanites need and want. Yes, there are non-urbanist democrats, just like there are urbanist republicans, because not all urbanites share the same needs. But serving urban environments is still fundamentally the core of what the party is and wants.

What evidence is there that indicates that the US is headed towards organized political violence?

Uh, the fact that we're already here? Two trump assasins and luigi. Unless the economy skyrockets and things start getting immediately better now we're already going through what later historians will probably call "the american troubles" or something alike.

More comments

What evidence is there that indicates that the US is headed towards organized political violence?

Headed towards? Organized political violence was all over every major city in 2020- the last time anything of that scale (and with that excuse) occurred was 1992, and the political violence was comparatively less organized and restricted to one city.

More comments

I'm interested in seeing you expand upon your second paragraph, seems like there's a lot to unpack there.

EDIT: I see you expanded upon it somewhat in your other reply, no need to reduplicate it now.

Governments require popular buy-in ("power") to function. Democracy is the idea that popular majorities confer such obvious power that it's pointless to oppose them. Republicanism is the idea that influential minority groups still need to be catered to.

The democratic party (as its name implies) typically follows a strategy of gathering together majorities and advocating for increasing their power. But the republican party has effectively made use of the complement strategy-- finding the most powerful minorities available and adhering them together. And the republican party's strategy has proven dominant, because it's harder to distribute power than it is to prevent the redistribution of power. Democrats have had to fold, over and over again, to moderates like Manchin and Sinema. That infuriated and demoralized the democratic base. Meanwhile, Democrats not only got blamed for government shutdowns, they got blamed for compromising to end government shutdowns.

So the lesson is: if you have one side that promises to do things, and one side that promises to not do things, the latter faction is structurally advantaged. The only way to change the equilibrium is for the democrats to realign-- to drop some of their most vulnerable constituents and attract some of their least vulnerable opponents. I think the most effective way to do that would be to give up on social security. It's already beginning to fail, and no one under thirty expects to receive it. Meanwhile, it's catnip for the social-economic liberals on the republican side... the people who want to have sex, do drugs, and dodge taxes.

Plus, in an accelerationist sense, social security saps popular impetus for a UBI in the same way that medicare/medicaid sap the will for universal healthcare.

Plus, in an accelerationist sense, social security saps popular impetus for a UBI in the same way that medicare/medicaid sap the will for universal healthcare.

The only way that America will get either of those things will be in the name of of bailing out the Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security.

Democrats have had to fold, over and over again, to moderates like Manchin and Sinema. That infuriated and demoralized the democratic base.

Progressivism is unpopular; a very tiny percentage of voters thought democrats were too far to the right.

Plus, in an accelerationist sense, social security saps popular impetus for a UBI in the same way that medicare/medicaid sap the will for universal healthcare.

An American UBI will almost certainly be executed through tax credits, and tax credit expansion is extremely popular and likely bipartisan.

Progressivism is unpopular; a very tiny percentage of voters thought democrats were too far to the right.

I had this same mental model of the world, and then harris lost. Without changing how I personally feel about progressivism, I now have to concede that the left-populists were right about the electorate.

It's worth remembering that the last democrat with any sort of popular movement was Yang, and he's also strongly populist-progressive (though not so much left-progressive.)

But the republican party has effectively made use of the complement strategy-- finding the most powerful minorities available and adhering them together.

The Democrats could also be described as making use of this tactic; prior to Trump, one could describe the two parties as rival coalitions: one made up of different ethnic minorities and college-educated whites, the other a weird mashup of business libertarians, religious fundamentalists, and ethnically-concerned right-wingers.

Democrats have had to fold, over and over again, to moderates like Manchin and Sinema. That infuriated and demoralized the democratic base.

One could argue, watching from another screen, that Manchin and Sinema were the last stalwarts keeping the Dem party from completely sabotaging itself and going full-lefty.

This is from your other reply, but I'll comment on it here:

And the more power gets taken away from old people, the less their cultural conservatism would hold sway over the american public.

Is the idea of "old = conservative" a given? I think a lot of your ideal vision rests a lot on this, among other things.

I think Phosphorus was getting at something when they claimed that you aren't describing reality, because it sounds like how you interpret politics and what you want out of politics are very weird and at odds with how things have tended to play out.

The Democrats could also be described as making use of this tactic

Yes, to some extent-- both parties use a variety of electoral strategies, I'm just describing a tactic the democratic coalition relies on more.

One could argue, watching from another screen, that Manchin and Sinema were the last stalwarts keeping the Dem party from completely sabotaging itself and going full-lefty.

I can and did argue that. I'm a neoliberal, not a leftist. But 2024 proved me wrong-- evidently the democratic base really did want left-populists, and us "return to normalcy" folks were basically wrong.

Is the idea of "old = conservative" a given? I think a lot of your ideal vision rests a lot on this, among other things.

Yes. Not every old person is a religious conservative-- but old people are intrinsically more resistant to change. Culture isn't just what people think about the gays... it's how people want their cities laid out, how business owners treat their employees, and what segments of the population are given disproportionate amounts of respect. And over the total spectrum of subjects, the old people in my party are basically as bad as the old people outside of it-- they still want to drive cars, destroy the environment, prevent dense construction, and extract transfer payments from the young.

I won't claim that the democratic party will abandon old people. I just think they should.

I don't think I have much more to say, other than I think that your "Eat the Old" idea is more of an aid to the "Eat the Rich" populist types than you might realize.

I don't mind if we eat the rich too, I just think it's infeasible. Slave revolutions basically never work-- you have to have some sort of elite buy-in.

The Legislature is meant to be the conservative aspect of the government. It is supposed to codify things that last, because it is very difficult to get a majority vote on something. This is why congress is supposed to ratify things like treaties. If we want stability, it needs to be explicitly enshrined in Congress.

The Executive is meant to be dynamic. It responds to events as they arise and is supposed to be under the control of the elected President. It should work this way. The new President comes in, representing the will of the entire American people, and determines governmental policy not codified in Law. What the executive does should change every time the President takes control.

A lot of things that are "regulations" should be laws, if they are something Congress can agree on. If Congress cannot agree on them, how is it reflective of our Republic to put unelected, unaccountable people in charge of making them and nothing the American people can do to stop them?

The Legislature is meant to be the conservative aspect of the government.

The legislature was meant to be the popular aspect of government. The Senate was supposed to be more deliberative, but there's nothing in, e.g. the Federalist Papers iirc that takes this view.

Are you sure about that? I'd say Federalist Paper No 62 supports me when it discusses the Senate:

IV. The number of senators, and the duration of their appointment, come next to be considered...

Fourthly. The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions...

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.

I read that as talking about the desirability that the members of the senate don't turn over as frequently as those of the house.

Maybe we're talking past each other. One of the reasons it is desirable for the members of the Senate to have longer terms is because it provides "some stable institution in the government." This shows that there was consideration of making the Senate a stabilizing institution in the government, which is in the Legislative branch.

If the objection is that I referenced treaties in my first post, I can pull a reference for that as well. Regarding Treaties, Federalist Paper No 64 has this to say:

They who wish to commit the power under consideration to a popular assembly, composed of members constantly coming and going in quick succession, seem not to recollect that such a body must necessarily be inadequate to the attainment of those great objects, which require to be steadily contemplated in all their relations and circumstances, and which can only be approached and achieved by measures which not only talents, but also exact information, and often much time, are necessary to concert and to execute....

There are a few who will not admit that the affairs of trade and navigation should be regulated by a system cautiously formed and steadily pursued; and that both our treaties and our laws should correspond with and be made to promote it. It is of much consequence that this correspondence and conformity be carefully maintained; and they who assent to the truth of this position will see and confess that it is well provided for by making concurrence of the Senate necessary both to treaties and to laws.

The Legislature is meant to be the conservative aspect of the government.

Yes, this is exactly my point. This executive order shifts power from the conservative to the-- as you call it-- "dynamic" aspect of the government. And conservatives are happy about this? What?

A lot of things that are "regulations" should be laws, if they are something Congress can agree on. If Congress cannot agree on them, how is it reflective of our Republic to put unelected, unaccountable people in charge of making them and nothing the American people can do to stop them?

And your solution to this is to put all that rulemaking power in the hands of the president?

This executive order shifts power from the conservative to the-- as you call it-- "dynamic" aspect of the government. And conservatives are happy about this? What?

Consider that your theoretical understanding of the role of the various branches is not fully capturing the conservative critique of modern government. The executive already was asserting dynamic authority to make huge policy changes expressly against the will of Congress - e.g. massive expansion of the sweep of "civil rights" legislation, Obama and Biden's policies on immigration, and Biden on COVID policy and student loans - but only when it aligned with certain types of left/progressive priorities. Conservative attempts to push back on these innovations were blocked by recalcitrant and occasionally-outright-insubordinate bureaucracy, creating a one-way ratchet effect. The most recent generation of conservatives have abandoned "traditional" constitutional order for fighting fire with fire and trying to enable conservative executives to act in ways that previously only left executives could.

And they thought the best way to do that wasn't through an act of congress (which they control), or through an act of the supreme court (which they also control), but by massively expanding the scope of presidential power?

You do know that trump is already on his second term, right? You have coinflip odds of winning the presidency in 2028 before taking into account any incumbent-destroying black swans.

It has been a conservative goal for decades to try to shrink the power of the admin state. Yes I guess that increases somewhat the power of the executive but that’s a small price to pay.

And conservatives are happy about this? What?

The obvious point would be that the Trumpist movement may be right-wing, but it is in no way conservative.

And yet every self-described conservative I know about it more-or-less happy with it. I assume that they think they're getting something out of it, but I suspect they're engaging in motivated reasoning about the likely strength of the backlash.

Because we hate the administrative state. It is unconstitutional, unaccountable, stifles growth and productivity, and is very statist / progressive. Admin state delenda est.

If the administrative state was unconstitutional the supreme court could have ruled it so.

But that's not really my point. I accept that no one gives a damn about the constitution. Rather, my point is that the cost of making a little more accountable is going to be an administrative state that is significantly more statist, and in the long-run probably more progressive and growth-stifling too. You can easily point at all the regulations you hate, but you're going to have much more trouble identifying all the bad regulations that never existed in the first place.

Now? well, it can take decades to grow a business... but only a few well-placed, well timed regulations and tarrifs to kill one. Making it easier to kill regulations by executive fiat is equivalent to making it easier to implement them. Trump is lubing up the levers of power, but one way or another, he's going to have to give up the stick.

I doubt it. The power existed. It was just very hard to oppose. Now, at minimum it can be opposed every four years.

Yes, this is exactly my point. This executive order shifts power from the conservative to the-- as you call it-- "dynamic" aspect of the government. And conservatives are happy about this? What?

Yes, I am happy with more accountability in government. I'd be happier with the Legislature passing actual laws instead of delegating regulations to the Executive. The Legislature should never give an executive department (department implementing laws) the authority to make regulations that they are unwilling to have change every presidency.

I'd be happier with the Legislature passing actual laws instead of delegating regulations to the Executive.

The president doesn't have to enforce laws he doesn't want to, and removing the independence of independent agencies removes one of the levers by which to make a president want to enforce laws.

The president doesn't have to enforce laws he doesn't want to

In practice this happens, but it really shouldn't - the President is constitutionally-charged with "faithfully" executing the law. The weaponization of enforcement discretion into a presidential pocket veto is a particularly nasty bit of constitutional hardball that's developed recently.

The president doesn't have to enforce laws he doesn't want to

While there is some discretion, I would not go that far. I actually really hate it when a president deliberately refuses to enforce a law. There is a problem of enforcement - the president cannot dedicate 100% of resources to enforce 100% of laws 100% of the time. But a president explicitly setting a policy where they refuse to enforce a law should be an impeachable offense.

independence of independent agencies

What is an Independent Agency? What does the word Independent mean? Does it mean something like, "Not accountable to civilian-appointed leaders?" If so, what makes it desirable? People use the word "independent" like it should have positive connotations, instead of horrific ones.

The justification is typically that Independent means non-partisan, but that is naivete. Everyone who makes policy has a side they prefer, a side that gives them more power or makes policies that align more with their own preferences.

There are Judicial Agencies. There are Legislative Agencies. These exist with direct oversight of the bodies that control them. If Congress wants to make another Legislative Agency, that's fine to do so. If Congress wanted to put the rule-making portion of the FCC's scope under themselves, assign a committee to do so and make laws that way, they are free to do so. I would welcome it. As they refuse, we are instead left with a dysfunctional and unbalanced government.

While there is some discretion, I would not go that far. I actually really hate it when a president deliberately refuses to enforce a law. There is a problem of enforcement - the president cannot dedicate 100% of resources to enforce 100% of laws 100% of the time. But a president explicitly setting a policy where they refuse to enforce a law should be an impeachable offense.

Impeachment is worthless without removal. Given the immunity ruling, the president has the unilateral power to do whatever they want so long as less than 60 people will vote for their removal.

Democrats are staring down the barrel of that right now and believe me, it is terrifying. You better hope republicans have a plan to rig every future election because otherwise that gun will be turned on you.

If Congress wants to make another Legislative Agency, that's fine to do so.

If congress wants to not have independent agencies, it's within their power to legislate that. They didn't. Trump seized control of the independent agencies away from them by fiat. If they don't do anything about it... well, for now they'll get some easy policy wins. But in the long term, I don't think they're going to enjoy what happens.

Democrats are staring down the barrel of that right now and believe me, it is terrifying. You better hope republicans have a plan to rig every future election because otherwise that gun will be turned on you.

I mean, I've been staring at that barrel half my life as well, so my sympathies. Maybe we can agree at this point to not delegate so much to the executive?

What do you think it's been like to be a Conservative this whole time? Do you think we like not having the Comstock Act enforced and have our taxes go to killing babies in their mother's womb? What are you worried about that tops that?

Maybe we can agree at this point to not delegate so much to the executive?

I agree on this point, and that's exactly why I liked that these agencies were independent. The senate could have killed the filibuster instead and started passing laws to deal with the administrative state if they wanted to-- but they didn't because presumably the ability to loot the government and install bureacrats via a patronage system is more convenient. Oh well.

What do you think it's been like to be a Conservative this whole time? Do you think we like not having the Comstock Act enforced and have our taxes go to killing babies in their mother's womb? What are you worried about that tops that?

Climate change. I'm a catholic, and therefore anti-abortion, but the net effect of stuff like "not funding abortions" is dramatically outweighed by the net increase in deaths caused by droughts, floods, famines, and famine-related-instability.

But oh well, at least this power is symmetric. I hope the next democratic president just straight-up regulates carbon intensive industries out of existence.

More comments

Democrats are staring down the barrel of that right now and believe me, it is terrifying. You better hope republicans have a plan to rig every future election because otherwise that gun will be turned on you.

We were staring down the barrel of it previously, and this was the best recourse we could find. I personally would prefer the power not exist; actually using it as we see fit and Progressives resisting where they may is the clearest path to eroding that power that I can see. Under Biden, we already saw state-level defiance to Federal orders. We're seeing more now versus Trump, and we'll see yet more when the Progressives are once more ascendent. Either unified power will break down and durable Federalism emerges from the conflict, or we escalate smoothly to actual civil war.

But in the long term, I don't think they're going to enjoy what happens.

What you are seeing with MAGA is precisely "I don't think they'll enjoy what happens" for Blue Tribe in general. "I don't think they'll enjoy what happens" wasn't a restraint on Blue ambitions under Obama or Biden (or Clinton or Bush II for that matter). The escalation spiral is a very evident phenomenon. Why expect departure now?

The basic problem is that we can no longer agree on core values, on what the laws should be and how they should be enforced. All the formal structures of our system of government assumed baseline homogeneity of values. Without that, none of this works, and what will happen is what we have seen happening for decades now: irreconcilable values-conflict blowing out one conflict-limiting mechanism after another as the pressure for a resolution one way or the other rises over time. Either someone has to win, or we have to have a divorce. There isn't really a third option.

We were staring down the barrel of it previously, and this was the best recourse we could find.

Republicans control all three branches of government. This was the best recourse you could find? Republicans could easily have looked for a solution that favored the power of the legislative branch (where they have a structural advantage) or the courts (where they'll soon have an incumbency advantage.) Instead, they gave the power to the presidency? Seriously?

The basic problem is that we can no longer agree on core values, on what the laws should be and how they should be enforced. Either someone has to win, or we have to have a divorce.

This part I agree with. That's why I'm so confused: why are the republicans giving the democrats the ammunition they need to win the divorce?

More comments

This executive order shifts power from the conservative to the-- as you call it-- "dynamic" aspect of the government. And conservatives are happy about this? What?

This is equivocating on "conservative". (resistance to change versus right-of-center political beliefs)

And your solution to this is to put all that rulemaking power in the hands of the president?

The Constitution puts the executive power in the hands of the President. That we've built this entire part of government not contemplated by the Constitution doesn't change that; it cannot have independent authority.

The independent agencies are insulated from electoral processes. That doesn't mean they're non-political, though: politics is inevitable, and removing the electoral check has just shifted the zone of political contention to somewhere more opaque where elite classes have more power. The idea that they're some kind of non-political entity governing based on natural law is just the ideology of a status quo that elites are already satisfied with.

This will result in different decisions. Some better, some worse. The great justification of democracy is that this process ends up working well (or, at least, better than all the others).

Disclaimer: I'm not a conservative and have an incredibly deep, burning apathy toward Trump.

an incredibly deep, burning apathy toward Trump.

Feels like an oxymoron when it's said like this, but that being said, I think I feel this way, too.

I was worried people would read it as "antipathy." But yeah: I think it's unhealthy for people to form deep emotional attachments to any politician, regardless of the valence. If I catch myself loving or hating Trump (or anyone) too much, I try to step away from politics for a couple days, since media manipulation is having too much an effect on me.

Cults of personality seem to swing both ways don't they. I am also radically apathetic.

An actual historian may correct me, but once upon a time in my AP History class going on 25 years ago, we learned that early on in America the President and the Vice President were directly voted on by the Senate, and could even come from different parties! This... didn't work great. The system was quickly revised for the President and Vice President to be a joint ticket. The problem of having an Executive Branch at odds with itself was quickly made manifest.

250 years later, we're putting a Republican President at the top of a Democrat Executive Branch and pretending we haven't just circled back to the same problem. I get if you are a Democrat you are thrilled that a class of professional civil servants is a check on a President you didn't vote for, and an accelerant for a President you did. But you should probably also consider that somewhere in the range of 60% of Americans1 approve of Trump cleaning house and getting the Executive Branch in line with his policy objectives. Maybe because they agree with his agenda, maybe because they understand and have lived through the issues of a divided government, or maybe because they just hate the Federal Government after Covid Tyranny and natural disaster fecklessness.

  1. I saw this in some CNN poll. It might be bullshit, I don't know.

An actual historian may correct me, but once upon a time in my AP History class going on 25 years ago, we learned that early on in America the President and the Vice President were directly voted on by the Senate, and could even come from different parties!

Before 1804 there was still the Electoral College system for electing the President, but whoever got the second-most electoral votes became the Vice President. The Twelfth Amendment was then made which gave us essentially the system we have today.

Perhaps OP is getting confused about the changes introduced by the 12th and the 17th Amendments. The 12th (as you said) gave us the modern system whereby electors vote for both president and vice president, superseding Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of senators by the people of each state, superseding Article I of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by the state legislatures.

Per Article II and also, with minor changes, per the 12th Amendment, in the event that no presidential candidate achieves a majority of votes in the electoral college, the House will choose the president. But at no time did the Senate ever vote for the president.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Not in the President, plus the commissioners of the FCC, the FTC, the SEC, or any other bureaucrats you care to name.

The most recent executive order is little c conservative regarding the law, in that it takes Loper Bright a step further in curtailing unelected legislating by bureaucrats.

It does not put the executive over the legislative or judicial branch, despite fear mongering. Instead, it puts the White House/AG over "independent" agencies. All regulations must be reviewed by the White House/AG's office, and agencies must defer to their interpretation of vague laws.

The judicial branch still has the ability to overturn those interpretations (they actually have more power to overturn those interpretations after the death of Chevron).

The legislative branch can avoid the issue by making more specific laws. This will never happen, because Congress has been fine with passing the buck to the executive branch to avoid reelection fights for a long time now. The legislative branch can also move certain agencies (or agency functions) into the legislative branch. Congress can make ALJs specialty Article III courts, to increase their independence from the President. Congress can move regulation-making functions underneath relevant subcommittees in the legislature, but that would increase their workload in reviewing what agencies are up to. Congress has delegated a lot of power to the executive, and the most recent EO is an example of how that can go sideways. If they didn't want the executive to have the power to interpret vague laws, they should've made less vague laws. The three branches were always supposed to be at war with each other, not casually handing over powers such as the tariff power.

It doesn't really impact what a Democratic president would or would not do - it's logical to think that Democrats, who are a fan of letting "experts" use their expertise, will return decision-making to independent agencies instead of wading through regulations at the Presidential level.

But the hyperbole around all of this is... Weird. If things are so bad, why do people/legacy media feel the need to exaggerate the impact? Idk. The language part of the culture war has always gotten to me.

Congress set up the federal bureacracy with an intended balance of power. This is important because, fundamentally, congress is just 435 dudes. They have no magical power to oppose the president-- only the practical power of what they can threaten him with if he won't comply with their demands. Removing the independence of independent agencies removes one of the things they can threaten the president with, making it permanently easier for the president to flout the law. It doesn't matter how precisely a law is defined, or what congress does in their subcommittees. If the president has the actual raw power to do whatever they want, it's trivial for them to say, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

fundamentally, congress is just 435 dudes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/congress-needs-be-way-way-bigger/611068/

EDIT: sorry. I posted this because I thought it was a pretty good article about why congress is too small and how we might imagine a much, much larger congress. Every time I see "435" now I snort in derision. The number is too low to be representative and too high to be functional. Representatives should be regular shlubs from around the block not life-time politicians. It should move fast--voting with a phone app or something--none of this mugging for the camera and grandstanding. Anyway, thought you might enjoy the read. didn't mean to drive-by post.

I've read this article before and agree with it.

Congress set up the federal bureacracy with an intended balance of power. This is important because, fundamentally, congress is just 435 dudes. They have no magical power to oppose the president-- only the practical power of what they can threaten him with if he won't comply with their demands.

Congress can say to the president "you are no longer president, we have impeached you". That is not just a threat, that is a very real power. They can also overrule his veto.

What does it mean to have balance of power? The president is supposed to be the boss. Congress is to be the purse. If congress sets up a system such that:

  • the president can't fire or discipline his own subordinates
  • the president can't direct his own subordinates to do things that he is allowed to do
  • the president has to do exactly what congress tells him to do with agencies

that to me seems that congress has a lot of power and the president does not have much power. Which is a balance of power, but not a very balanced balance of power.

Congress can say to the president "you are no longer president, we have impeached you"

That requires 60% of the senate. In the modern political context that's just not going to happen. That gives a president effectively total latitude for at least 4 years, even if midterms cut down their majority to 41%.

I do think the democrats are extremely lucky that trump is so old and already on his second term. That reduces his incentives to rig the election for a successor, and means the democrats still have a chance of controlling the first (and last) post-trump president.

removal through impeachment requires 2/3rds of senators present to vote for removal which for all practical purposes means it requires 67 senators in the modern context

famously, the 36th senator refused to vote yes on each of the articles of impeachment to remove President Johnson ending each round of voting 35-19 which was 64.8% of the Senate

That reduces his incentives to rig the election for a successor

Each state runs its own elections.

Before I say anything else, what was your opinion on the election fraud allegations between 2020 and election day?

They were correct in two ways:

  1. There is likely large scale election fraud in most elections;
  2. Covid "reforms" made said fraud easier, and also created large swathes of illegal, but not necessarily fraudulent, votes that were counted anyways.

Then if you believe in election fraud anyways there's no point making the defense of "each state runs their own elections." In fact, you should probably accept that all elections are totally rigged, and take the sequence of events from 2016-2024 as evidence that the deep state was secretly on your side as part of a long-term plan to get trump in office.

More comments

Congress not wanting to use its magical powers does not mean that congress does not have magical powers. It has these magical powers regardless of the political context. At any time it could use these magical powers, for any reason it chooses to.

Do you see any dissonance with your two positions? I do.

It would be reasonable to complain about bureacrats having to much power relative to politicians... except for the fact that the politicians have held all the power the entire time, except distributed in such a way that they refused to use it.

That requires 60% of the senate. In the modern political context that's just not going to happen. That gives a president effectively total latitude for at least 4 years, even if midterms cut down their majority to 41%.

In the first you argue that power distribution is inconsequential to a body actually having that power. In the second you argue that power distribution is consequential, consequential to the point of negation, of a body having power. Which is it?

Previously, a congressional party with 51% majorities in the senate and house could refuse to confirm presidential appointments, and therefore limit the ability of the president to interfere with independent agencies. Previously, a president faced the threat of legal action after their term if they violated the law.

These were powers that congress and the judicial system had-- even if they rarely chose to exercise them.

Now, presidents can do what they want w.r.t independent agencies, and to interfere congress needs a 51% majority in the house and a 60% majority in the senate to impeach and remove. Now, presidents have permanent immunity against prosecution.

Conrgess has lost a portion of its power over the president, dramatically and permanently.

Conrgess has lost a portion of its power over the president, dramatically and permanently.

They have lost power over the president. But none of that has to do with Trump, Trump's most recent EO, and it is not either dramatic or permanent. Congress can always repeal a law and remove an agency from existence if they don't like how the President is managing the agency. The reason Congress has lost some of its power is that they did so intentionally by creating rulemaking agencies within the executive branch, which was a delegation of Congressional power to make laws. That they tried having some sort of end around this reality by falsely labeling some of them "independent" didn't actually make them so.

Independent wasn’t about trying to get around non delegation; it was a silly progressive idea of making it non political.

The legislative power is vested in congress. Congress cannot delegate that authority even if the court doesn’t want to go that far (eg congress can’t say “Zeke now gets to write all of the laws”. Independence is largely orthogonal to non delegation concerns.

Previously, a congressional party with 51% majorities in the senate and house could refuse to confirm presidential appointments, and therefore limit the ability of the president to interfere with independent agencies.

Congress still has the power to refuse confirmation with 51% majorities. They still have that ability, in that specific context you yourself have denoted, to limit the president from interfering with independent agencies.

Previously, a president faced the threat of legal action after their term if they violated the law.

The president still faces the threat of legal action after their term if they violated the law. Quoting Trump v. United States:

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.

Now, presidents can do what they want w.r.t independent agencies, and to interfere congress needs a 51% majority in the house and a 60% majority in the senate to impeach and remove. Now, presidents have permanent immunity against prosecution.

No, this is not true. Congress still controls the purse. Congress can still interfere by cutting funding to the executive branch, and it only needs 51% in both houses. And per above, congress can still interfere by not approving appointments.

The senate needs 2/3rds to remove, not 60%.

No the president does not have permanent immunity against prosecution, see above.

Conrgess has lost a portion of its power over the president, dramatically and permanently.

I do agree that congress has lost some power. I don't think its as drastic as you think it is. I think they have a good change of clawing a lot of that power back by writing bills better. Right now it seems that all congressional funding is passed in omnibus bills, that are very general. They say things like "USAID is an agency that does X, its under control of the president" and "fund USAID with $X money". They give a lot of leeway. If they write the bills with less leeway, then I think they can claw a lot of that power back. Something more like "fund 100 positions to do XYZ at USAID". But we will see.

Congress still has the power to refuse confirmation with 51% majorities.

Nah, "interim" appointments just last forever now.

The president still faces the threat of legal action after their term if they violated the law.

Everything is an official act if the president wants it to be. Everything else gets done by underlings and receives pardons. The idea that presidents were liable to state law provided a check on that-- but now it's gone. I won't pretend like republicans are fully to blame for that-- I'm not a fan of biden's blanket pardons. But this is one more, massive, crack in the dam.

More comments

No. This is ahistoric and not how agencies acted.

Independent agencies were set up to be free of political oversight because the FDR progressives believed in rule by expert. Note that this isn’t a check on the political power under how separation of powers is thought of (where competing branches can check the excess of the other branch), but instead a power base with very little accountability (ie no one to check it).

By eliminating the independent nature of these bureaucrats, we are actually returning power to the three separate branches horizontally and the two separate powers vertically. So instead of limiting separation of powers this actually strengthens it.

Congress set up the federal bureacracy with an intended balance of power.

Where was it said that the balance of power was intended to be at heavily ideologically progressive skew of the pre-Trump level? Why should anyone care after all the abuses of the executive from FDR to Obama?

Where was it said that the balance of power was intended to be at heavily ideologically progressive skew of the pre-Trump level?

Congress said it, right now, by not passing a law to do it themselves. I wouldn't exactly be happy about congress passing a law to reduce the independence of independent agencies, but it would at least be government operating in its proper course. Alternatively, the president filing suit to get the legal framework of independent agencies before the supreme court would still be respecting constitutional norms in a way that at the very least can't be symmetrically copied by a later democratic president (since republicans are likely to control the supreme court for the rest of my life, barring court-packing.)

Doing this with an executive order is a naked grab for power from both the courts and congress, with no recourse for either.

Why should anyone care after all the abuses of the executive from FDR to Obama?

Two wrongs doesn't make a right, buddy. Especially when this latest wrong enables dramatically more impactful wrongs in later presidents.

Doing this with an executive order is a naked grab for power from both the courts and congress, with no recourse for either.

Not so, executive orders are themselves reviewable by the Supreme Court.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

And this cuts both ways, as Bruen and Heller have demonstrated.

You replied to a filtered post.

More comments

Two wrongs doesn't make a right, buddy.

Actually they do; tit-for-tat-with-forgiveness is a pretty great strategy for incentivizing everyone to behave.

Morality is not subject to game theory. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a moral judgement, not a statement of what will be effective.

One would think it's been more than 400 years since political philosophy moved on from naive idealism.

Ineffective principles are not moral in any useful sense. Not as applied to politics anyways. Even Natural Law is a form of instrumentalism at the end of the day.

Congress said it, right now, by not passing a law to do it themselves.

Where is it said that only Congress can do it, and only by passing a law?

Two wrongs doesn't make a right, buddy.

If literally no one who is bothered by this voiced their protest about the past abuses, how am I supposed to believe they consider it to be two wrongs?

Especially when this latest wrong enables dramatically more impactful wrongs in later presidents.

That doesn't make it different from past abuses.

Where is it said that only Congress can do it, and only by passing a law?

In the part where the constitution gives the branches particular enumerated powers and "the power to regulate" isn't assigned to the president.

If literally no one who is bothered by this voiced their protest about the past abuses, how am I supposed to believe they consider it to be two wrongs?

This is a bullshit argument and you know it. People complain incessantly about the abuses of their own side-- particuarly with the technocrat and left-populist factions of the democrats having been at odds since 2016.

That doesn't make it different from past abuses.

There's a difference between killing one person and killing ten people, even if they're both murder. I'm still struggling to understand why you think the best remedy to presidential abuses of power is to cheer them on when they abrogate to themselves even more powers to abuse.

In the part where the constitution gives the branches particular enumerated powers and "the power to regulate" isn't assigned to the president.

So this all rests on the Constitution not giving specific powers to a particular branch of the federal government? Do you have any idea how many ships have sailed from that port?

This is a bullshit argument and you know it. People complain incessantly about the abuses of their own side-- particuarly with the technocrat and left-populist factions of the democrats having been at odds since 2016.

No, I don't know it. First, unless by "populist left" you mean people like Glenn Greenwald, this doesn't even seem all that true to me, and secondly, we're not just talking about what the left would consider abuse in the context of an intra-left battle, we're talking about things not allowed by the constitution.

There's a difference between killing one person and killing ten people, even if they're both murder.

I'm yet to hear the argument for why what's happening now is comparable to the guy killing ten people rather than one.

I'm still struggling to understand why you think the best remedy to presidential abuses of power is to cheer them on when they abrogate to themselves even more powers to abuse.

For the same reason I wouldn't feel bad about flirting with a colleague, after I found my wife cheated on me.

Okay you say the president doesn’t have the power to regulate. Can you show me where in the constitution the SEC has the power to regulate? What branch of the government? Who delegated those powers and are those powers delegable?

Congress delegating the power to regulate under specific constrained conditions (that the regulation take place in an independent agency) does not mean the president irrevocably has total power to write regulation.

Or, well, I guess now it does. Let's see how sanguine you are about all this the next time a non-republican president is in office.

More comments

but that would increase their workload in reviewing what agencies are up to.

One of the many reasons we should expand the House.

By my own estimate, around 0.15% of Executive Branch staff is hired directly or indirectly by the President. The remaining 99.85% is permanent staff of the bureaucracy. The president in all cases has received more votes than the bureaucracy, which has received 0 votes.

I don't really know how you can possibly pay any lip service to "our democracy" in light of those facts--the modern US system is much more like a technocratic oligarchy than anything resembling a republic (even calling it a democracy is a common mistake).

I think it's really funny how neoliberals define an utterly narrow range of acceptable policy for prosperity, look down upon and fight against any experimentation outside of that range, then claim vacuous truth of an "economic disaster" if any of that policy actually might be implemented. The "consensus order" is disturbed precisely because the Trump administration has figured out how much the bureaus sit in the way of any meaningful change.

My back of hand calculations for the percentage above:

  • Roughly ~4K presidential employees between senate confirmed appointees, appointees, schedule C, non-career senior executives.
  • Roughly 2.4MM executive branch career civil employees.

I'm sure we could bikeshed over the exact numbers, but I think it's quite clear that the bureaus massively outweigh political staff.

Unless you want all bureaucrats selected by sortition or direct election this is just a gish-gallop. Nobody cares if there are more bureacrats than elected politicians-- we care about the relative distribution of power between them, and between the branches of the government. It would be reasonable to complain about bureacrats having to much power relative to politicians... except for the fact that the politicians have held all the power the entire time, except distributed in such a way that they refused to use it. Trump's executive order therefore does nothing to decrease the power of the bureaucracy, it just takes power away from the legislature and gives it to the president. And sure, that's not hugely far from the "norm" (insofar as one exists), but I'm baffled by the fact that conservatives think that it's a norm violation that long-term benefits them. Yes, they're structurally advantaged in the electoral college-- but not nearly as much as they are in the senate.

Trump's executive order therefore does nothing to decrease the power of the bureaucracy, it just takes power away from the legislature and gives it to the president.

If the bureaucracy and executive branch are not the same thing then giving power to the president decreases the power of the bureaucracy.

There's some decent evidence that the bureaucracy and executive are...not always the same thing.

This is just completely wrong historically. There is and has been almost no oversight by Congress. The APA was intended to rein in agencies but that didn’t work.

Structurally agencies could quickly make rules and unless the rules were hopelessly inconsistent with the statutory scheme they were blessed by courts. No check there.

If Congress wanted to upend the rule, both houses would need to pass a bill (frequently with a super majority in the Senate) AND the President would need to sign the bill. That represents a lot of veto points. In contrast, agencies didn’t face those veto points. So there has been a massive growth of regulations over the years because that was easier and indeed those administrations became more of law writers compared to the Congress or President.

The courts have finally started to push back against independent agencies and this is another avenue to do so.

If it will empower a Democrat president, the Democrat president could have just passed a similar order. Not a big deal.

Trump passing this order is contigent on a very specific set of political circumstances-- including supreme court justices he personally appointed and a congress that's been influenced toward his ideology for eight years. Having a four-year gap in between his terms is proving to be a massive advantage in centralizing power. It's likely that if a democratic president (or any other republican president) had tried the same thing, they would have been impeached, or resisted by the courts. But now that pandora's box is opened, every subsequent president gets to benefit from this order.

That kind of reasoning legitimizes literally anything.

Perhaps.

Perhaps people have heard many years of fearmongering about Trump breaking norms while observing his opposition actually break norms "because Trump."

Trumps EO on so called "independent agencies" rests on solid constitutional footing, as the constitution does not contemplate such a thing. Congress, if it is upset with his EO, can repeal the acts creating said agencies OR file suit and petition the courts to declare them unconstitutional (which they very likely are).

Yes, it's called "democracy." Vox populi, vox dei. Or something.

Anything is legitimate if people believe it is.

Given the previous POTUS tried to change the constitution unilaterally, I think America is well past the point where this is a valid objection in practice.

The only question is whether it'll work.

I mean, his username is sulla.

In Austria, we used to have political hiring very far down the chain. This worked fine because every government was a coalition of the two major parties, so we didnt constantly turn them over. It changed eventually, but more so due to the bad optics of patronage and limited meritocracy. Today of course, we do actually change our government - though theres also a good chance well settle into something again in the medium term, and maybe that bit of chaos now would be worth it.

I dont think this flipping is viable long-term. It was fine in the days of Jackson, but today the civil service is much more of a career, and thats not compatible with flipping a coin every 4 years whether youll have a job. It would sooner lead to actually obedient bureaucrats.

But I also dont think the wilder swings in governing ideology are viable. The government just does too much for that. Spending is a third of GDP (plus more effectively commandeered by regulations), redirecting even just a good portion of that every 4-8 years is very destructive, and besides, theres no value in a border closed half the time, or a pension paying out half the time. Ive said this before in the context of election fraud or electoral college discussions, but if a 2% effect can make your government not just different, but really different and unacceptably bad, then you should reconsider whether the one without that small deviation is really legitimate.

So I think this scenario youre describing will be avoided, one way or another. Boringly, by continuation of the status quo pre-Trump. Or interestingly, by a stable orthodoxy that encompasses much more than bureaucrats.

today the civil service is much more of a career

Such is the problem with the federal civil service. Other than the Patent Office, there is little footing for most of such career positions.

Trump’s core supporters are fine with declining state capacity, which is the end result here.

Are you sure about that? Theres clearly some things they want done as well, and its not like taxes would go down in proportion to the lesser output.

Considering how much state capacity gets used to harass me and mine, yes, we're fine with it declining.

But I also dont think the wilder swings in governing ideology are viable.

This claim is essentially incompatible with representative government. If the government rules basically the same even when the people want something different, you don't have a democracy or republic, you have some sort of oligarchy or aristocracy.

Did you just ignore the rest of the paragraph after that? Its fine to have a change like this, or maybe even a few back-and-forths, every few decades or so. And/or more gradual change all the time. But if you do it every 4-8 years, youre really not gonna like the results. Theres also the part where these swings come from relatively small changes in the electorate; unless this specific system is the only one that may ever count as representative, they are propably not too difficult to avoid.

My point is not that you cant change things, but that something will prevent the scenario OP outlines, and you should be afraid or not of those somethings instead.

Did you just ignore the rest of the paragraph after that?

It was giving reasons the swings aren't viable. The reasons don't matter; good reasons, bad reasons, if it's true that the swings are not viable, then representative government is not viable.

Its fine to have a change like this, or maybe even a few back-and-forths, every few decades or so.

There is nothing in our system to allow for an "every few decades" change. If you've set up a system which is not responsive to elections, there is no reason it would be responsive to something slower which doesn't exist.

My point is not that you cant change things, but that something will prevent the scenario OP outlines, and you should be afraid or not of those somethings instead.

This is a demand for those opposed to the policies of the permanent government to not even try to get their way. It should be no surprise it often falls on deaf ears. Pre-Trump Republicans are often accused of following such a policy; it's how they lost the party.

I think youve somehow got the idea Im an enemy, and interpret me as arguing under that goal. I think Im on your side, but what Im saying here doesnt particularly help either.

It was giving reasons the swings aren't viable.

It also says when they are not viable, and I dont think these situations are inescapable. Your incompatibility is true only if theres nothing that can reduce the frequency of flips, other than an unelected ruling ideology. Im open to critique of democracy, but I dont find this one convincing.

Look, theres been a few democracies in the world and as far as I know none of them ever had this problem where they ran the state into the ground because they flip-floped every election. It just doesnt happen, because people can see it coming and do something else instead. Now you can ask yourself what that something else could be in our case and if thats good or bad, but I didnt really go into that because it gets speculative quickly and my point is to not fixate on the shiny flip-flop scenario. Yes, you need to think about it a bit because the BATNA is relevant to what people do instead, but comments like OP where you assume that theres a decent chance it happens and wouldnt that suck for republicans are living entirely in lalaland.

I think youve somehow got the idea Im an enemy, and interpret me as arguing under that goal. I think Im on your side, but what Im saying here doesnt particularly help either.

I don't claim you're my enemy, but I do claim your thesis puts you in opposition to representative government.

Your incompatibility is true only if theres nothing that can reduce the frequency of flips, other than an unelected ruling ideology. Im open to critique of democracy, but I dont find this one convincing.

If elections cannot change government policy, that there is an unelected ruling ideology seems inescapable. If they can, but do not because the people are not so fickle... well, we're clearly not in that situation.

Look, theres been a few democracies in the world and as far as I know none of them ever had this problem where they ran the state into the ground because they flip-floped every election.

Perhaps they all had unelected ruling ideologies. Or perhaps the state won't actually run into the ground just because the opposition gets to make policy when they're in charge.

If they can, but do not because the people are not so fickle... well, we're clearly not in that situation.

It certainly seems possible that after seeing one or two back and forths, they are more willing to meet in the middle and make small changes. But your options arent exhaustive: going back to my first comment, parliamentary systems change less often, and the new coalition will generally share one party with the old. Obviously youre not going to adopt that so fast either, but it shows there are other options. Maybe MAD diplomacy between the parties can work... etc. Obviousy an unelected ideology (same or new) is also a possible outcome.

As @anti_dan points out, the most well-known parliamentary system is the source of "Yes, Minister". The parties change but the bureaucrats wield power regardless. A working parliamentary system can change power more often and more completely than the US system does, since there is no separate executive and elections can be called at any time.

More comments

Britain, the most famous parliamentary system, has a huge unelected bureaucracy wholly unanswerable to the populace.

That touches upon an interesting question, though - to what extent should democratically elected governments be able to constrain the actions of future ones? There is a sliding scale from saying "the previous government's decision to have this separate executive agency be untouchable by future administrations is null and void" to saying "we will not honour contracts or debts taken out by any past government", and each of them could be justified in the same way. If the People are sovereign, why can't they make a sovereign decision to renege on a contract? Of course, if you did that, the government would find it much harder to get anyone or anything to trust it and sign a contract with it in the future. Of course, you could then argue that a truly sovereign people should take the L and make it a learning experience (and maybe next time consider to vote for contracts made in their name to be honoured even if they have come to hate the guy who they empowered to make them). That might be fine philosophically, but in reality no major country's people may actually have sufficient collective executive function to learn that lesson. As a result, the perfect democracy, as philosophically appealing as it may be, would be outcompeted by other countries running a kayfabe democracy that somewhat insulates the people from their stupidity. Are you ready to make that experiment with your own country on the line?

There is a sliding scale from saying "the previous government's decision to have this separate executive agency be untouchable by future administrations is null and void" to saying "we will not honour contracts or debts taken out by any past government"

In the US, the rule is very much closer to the latter. In law, this is the rule against "legislative entrenchment", often expressed as "the current legislature may not bind the future legislature". As far as I know, no one has seriously questioned whether the equivalent rule applies to the executive. The US Government may be bound by treaty or constitutional amendment, but not much else.

Are you ready to make that experiment with your own country on the line?

The alternative being that the bureaucracy runs the government, "Yes Minister" style? Yes.

Quite a regional thing, in Switzerland there are essentially permanent coalitions that last for decades until the vote changes so much that things need to be renegotiated, which the parties do amongst themselves, then the new permanent government is established. The longest one was from 1959 to 2004.

It’s simply reattaching the steeering wheel. These agencies don’t even listen to the elected government, they’re mostly tasked with keeping the neo-liberal machine going.

These agencies listened to congress and the courts. This isn't re-attaching the steering wheel, it's yanking out congress' steering wheel and giving it to the president.

Probably I'm biased by the fact that I want to keep the neoliberal machine going... but do conservatives really not see the danger in giving leftists a chance to transform it into a vanguard-communist machine instead? The obama/biden wing of the party died with harris' loss. It's all berniecrats from here on out.

Probably I'm biased by the fact that I want to keep the neoliberal machine going... but do conservatives really not see the danger in giving leftists a chance to transform it into a vanguard-communist machine instead? The obama/biden wing of the party died with harris' loss. It's all berniecrats from here on out.

I'm sorry what? The neolib faction is still quite ascendant for Democrats. Berniecrats have no money and own little to no media. Money and media control are the only two things Democrats have in their favor at all. If the billionaires and neolibs disengaged from the Democrat party they'd become a permanent loser akin to Republicans in Chicago.

Probably I'm biased by the fact that I want to keep the neoliberal machine going... but do conservatives really not see the danger in giving leftists a chance to transform it into a vanguard-communist machine instead?

As per the recent discussions about the sad, sorry state of liberalism as of late, the perception among some is that the Neoliberal Machine has already unwittingly fed the strength of the Communist Vanguard, and the radical actions of Trump et. al. are a potential alternative to letting the Progressive Chestburster hatch from what's left of the incumbent neoliberal order.

Well as a member of said neoliberal order, it really feels like you're feeding neoliberal prisoners to the chestburster nest instead of bringing out the flamethrowers.

Trump just wants/is entitled to the same level of obedience and ideological alignment that Barack Obama and Jill Biden enjoyed.

Conservatives believe that the independent agencies (as well as dependent agencies) are already maximally controlled by the enemy. They are the deep state, beholden to no interests but their own. A federal agency that is controlled by the enemy half the time is better than one controlled by the enemy 100% of the time.

I think the next time the Democrats are in power will be a painful wake up call in that case. Things can always get worse.

Things can always get worse, but Democrats have demonstrated they need no Republican precedent to take such steps. They Bork'd Bork; Reid eliminated the filibuster for judges; Biden stripped Trumps security clearance and tried to send him to federal prison. All that was without provocation.

Perhaps but at least the line of political accountability will be clear. There will be no question of where the buck stops.

You know, I am not sure about this. Democrats honestly did not do a great job executing on governance under Biden. Their bench and pipeline began to hollow out under Obama and it really felt like the competency drained out of the party in the post-Obama era – maybe some of that was a uniquely Biden problem. But I honesty could see them taking power and mostly spinning their wheels for four years.

Mind you this is not a prediction and I do not think the right should get too triumphalist right now (although it is good for morale to do a few victory laps).

Well now it’s even worse that they’ve purged a bunch of Jews and replaced them with grifters of diversity.

Just glancing at this –

  1. Just pragmatically, I don't think agencies like the FCC, FTC and SEC have ever really done anything for conservatives, so why would conservatives want to protect a bastion of their enemies? This could be a good idea long term since it means conservatives can remove their ideological enemies from those organizations regularly instead of running the risk of them turning blue with no practical recourse.
  2. From a principled point of view, the establishment of such agencies is somewhat constitutionally dodgy – I believe they often use administrative law judges (who don't have to go through the normal political appointment process) and because they are independent they aren't really responsive to the will of the voters and thus arguably don't fit into the Constitutional schema. (The counteragument to this, I think, is holding a strong view of legislative power, but of course the legislative cannot legislate contrary to the Constitution, so it seems like there is a chance that SCOTUS decides these agencies are carrying out executive power and Congress can't really delegate that out.)

Just pragmatically, I don't think agencies like the FCC, FTC and SEC have ever really done anything for conservatives, so why would conservatives want to protect a bastion of their enemies?

Even if you accept that they have never done anything for conservatives, can't you see that they could be doing a lot more to conservatives? Their independence cuts both ways. It harder to get them to stop doing something harmful, but also a lot harder to get them to start.

And while I'm not sure if administrative law judges are "constitutional" I'm pretty sure that having no judges at all isn't going to do anything to preserve my constitutional rights.

And while I'm not sure if administrative law judges are "constitutional" I'm pretty sure that having no judges at all isn't going to do anything to preserve my constitutional rights.

You're missing the whole Article III branch. ALJs are executive employees.

It harder to get them to stop doing something harmful, but also a lot harder to get them to start.

Yes, this seems like a potential downside.

And while I'm not sure if administrative law judges are "constitutional" I'm pretty sure that having no judges at all isn't going to do anything to preserve my constitutional rights.

The cure for this is actual independent judges, not having disputes between agencies and outsiders moderated by employees of the agency.

The cure for this is actual independent judges

Judges are structurally incapable of being independent. They're either appointed by a particular political party or (in rare cases) elected.

I still think it's better to be before a judge who was appointed or elected than one who was hired by your adversary in the case which is how ALJs work.

Right. For instance, if the FAA wants to fine you, they sent you a letter called a "Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty". You can either accept the penalty, or request a hearing before an administrative judge in the FAA Office of Adjudication. After this judge finds you guilty, you get an appeal... to the administrator of the FAA, who delegates this to the FAA Chief Counsel's office -- which is the office prosecuting you. (They used to, but no longer, delegate it to the actual prosecutor in your case.) After you lose there, you can appeal to the US Court of Appeals, but the standard of review is very deferential.

The Star Chamber had nothing on this, perhaps besides efficiency.

Who are they accountable to? Not the presidents, not the congress and before the fall of the Chevron doctrine - not to the judiciary. Who can tell the head of the EPA or FCC what they should do?

Not sure if this was meant to be a reply to me, but yes, I think this is part of why they might be considered Constitutionally dodgy.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats