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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
They go into the cotemporary legal definitions, and note that there were smaller scale insurrections that were considered insurrections.
Their main argument was that the January 6 mob was an attempt to use at least the show and threat of force in opposition to the constitutional order, and maybe, but more dubiously, that the assorted plans, second sets of electors, etc. could be considered rebellion even without force.
But yeah, it's no civil war.
What makes this newsworthy to me isn't so much that people are arguing that January 6th was an insurrection, for the reasons you say, but the fact that actions could be taken because of that that could have a substantial effect on the upcoming election.
Insurrections smaller than January 6, but which other events in contemporary American politics haven't surpassed? Which?
But the argument made was that this is an interpretation should qualify as a rebellion to the perspectives of the people who drafted the amendment- but the amendment was drafted by people whose concept of Rebellion was intrinsically one of mass, organized force on the scale of war.
So again- why should anyone believe the Amendment drafter's views of Rebellion were such that Jan 6 qualified?
Which actions can be taken because of this that couldn't have been taken already?
This is not a position claiming a consensus of Federal Society legalists, or concurrence by government lawyers, or a position made by anyone else in the last several years of lawfare. It's novel, not authoritative.
Sorry, by contemporary I meant to the time, not to today, if that wasn't clear.
I can't go into details because I can't get the pdf to open, but I believe they referenced assorted earlier cases that were smaller than the civil war (the one I remember was the Whiskey rebellion, but they referenced a bunch more). I don't know the details, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that even those were larger than the Trump events.
Sure, it's novel and not authoritative, but it being more mainstream could make an impact, since all that it needs to do so is convince a few officials. If no one else, I could see state officials in democratic states not listing Trump, and that could make a big difference in the primaries if it doesn't get to the supreme court before then.
It was clear, and I am still awaiting a standard that distinguishes January 6 as a rebellion but which does not also catch many more non-contested politicians to the point that it's not an arbitrary special pleading.
Then the comparisons are not validating the necessary claims that the events of January 6 are a rebellion from an Originalist perspective. If January 6 is not a rebellion from an Originalist perspective, then banning Trump from running would not be an argument based on Originalism, but something else trying to claim the mantle of originalism to disguise smuggled assumptions. It's still assuming the conclusion that Trump conducted rebellion, and then arguing that the assumption warrants ignorring the sort of due process that is set out for actually establishing the conclusion.
But there's nothing here indicating it's any sort of mainstream. Again, no claim has been made this reflects a common or shared viewpoint of the Originalist legal establishment, let alone the non-Federalist legal schools of thought, let alone the opposition party that has been deriding the Federalists for years.
For something to be mainstream, it needs to be, well, not novel and actually be authoritative.
What, besides political cover of preferred justifications, makes you think Democratic states would de-list Trump based on this, and but would not de-list Trump on grounds that Trump has been indited and impeached multiple times?
I can't respond to the first half until I'm able to access the pdf again, since that's still not working, last I checked.
But to the ending, they might be persuaded that this could present at least the possibility that it might be the correct and legal thing to do—there's no way the indictments would disqualify, and the impeachments weren't agreed to by the margin required in the Senate.
Given that the nature of political violence in the last half decade has been quite considerable with more than a few cases with far more violence and damage than conducted on January 6, you absolutely can respond as to what sort of standard might meaningfully identifies January 6 as a rebellion and other acts of violence in and around the capital and country in the years prior as not.
It certainly wasn't the timing that would make it a rebellion, as there is no requirement nor does proximity automatically qualify. It wasn't the death count. It wasn't the property damage. It wasn't the degree of organization. It wasn't the amount of backing from political elites. It wasn't the proximity to Congress persons.
Neither would trying to delist the opposition candidate on charges he has never been convicted of, and yet here you are taking it seriously.
So I ask- why on earth should anyone believe a Democratic politician was sincerely persuaded of the correct and legal nature of an unprecedented attempt at political attack against an opposition party candidate... by an opinion piece of non-authoritative lawyers associated with an organization the Democratic party has regularly identified itself in ideological opposition to?
Does this hypothetical Democrat find all of the Federalist Society writings convincing, or just this pair of writers? Or just this article? Do they plan to apply this standard consistently even if it means coming to odds with their own party, or is this new novel legal theory they sincerely believe in only going to be used to the broad approval of their caucus before being put away?
I'm not making any assertion that other acts of violence wouldn't qualify (again, assuming the authors are right on all this).
Nor am I claiming that it wouldn't be politically motivated, or inconsistently applied.
The difference is that now they can claim to be doing it because of law, and it will have to go through courts instead of being shot down right away.
Then we have already identified the issue, which is that no one in contemporary American politics who would be responsible for de-listing Trump has held that standard. Thus, a lack of sincere belief in the standard, and instead nakedly partisan motivation.
Then this wouldn't be based in Originalist principles or Conservative legal thinking, which emphasize consistency and continuity, and we're back to skinsuit theory of argument by smuggled insinuation.
Things that get shot down 'right away' have already had to go through the courts, where they take varying degrees of time depending on how sympathetic the initial judge filed with. This is not a change- this is how lawfare works, and has been working vis-a-vis Trump for some time. There is no shortage of politically reliable judges who have signed off on things that 'inevitably' get shot down on sufficient higher appeal, but whose initial support is claimed as legal validation.
As no one has established why this claimed theory would credibly pass constitutional muster at higher legal levels, beyond the appeal to Federalist credentialism, this is no different than any of the other anti-Trump lawfare theories that could reliably get lowest-level support and use that for political maneuvering efforts.
It is similar to Jack Smith. He invented a novel legal theory that will only be used against Trump (even though it could be used against many prominent DC politicians) which proves the theory is bullshit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link