site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   29677 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 2023

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This whole quagmire could be avoided if republicans simply let go of Trump and supported someone not so old and so indicted, but they love marching into a trap.

  • -23

Completely wrong.

It isn't Trump the person that is getting the ire of the security establishment/power elite, but the policies he is claiming to represent and desires to implement. It doesn't matter who the actual person is - any politician advocating for the positions he holds and that his base requires of any prospective leader will immediately end up in the exact same position with more spurious charges. Giving up on Trump sends the message that their concerns can be ignored and brushed over for the sake of petty excuses that don't matter at all for the left. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton both have committed far more egregious crimes and problematic behaviors when compared to Trump, but nobody cares because they are fighting for the security establishment/power elite. Letting these facile concerns determine the candidate just means admitting that they will never, ever get their concerns addressed.

It isn't Trump the person that is getting the ire of the security establishment/power elite, but the policies he is claiming to represent and desires to implement.

Policies like First step act and Platinum plan? "Take the guns first, due process later"? Running up trillion dolar deficits?Maybe dems are angry because Trump was stealing from their playbook.

Giving up on Trump sends the message that their concerns can be ignored and brushed over for the sake of petty excuses

Then why is Ann Coulter for dropping Trump and nominating DeSantis? Or Massie?

Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton both have committed far more egregious crimes and problematic behaviors when compared to Trump, but nobody cares because they are fighting for the security establishment/power elite.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that Trump is innocent. Half of the prison population could be less guilty than those two for all I know.

Voters want what they want.

Hillary Clinton was the 2nd most disliked presidential candidate since modern opinion polling was invented. By some estimations she's practically the only Democrat who could have lost to Trump in 2016. This counterfactual "they should have picked someone else if they wanted to win" may be generally true for either or both parties for many elections.

But voters want what they want, and the Republican ones overwhelmingly want Trump by huge margins.

"Pick a different candidate if you want to win because your frontrunner is wildly unpopular" and "pick a different candidate if you want to win because your frontrunner is likely to be disqualified and/or imprisoned" are superficially similar but practically very different kinds of advice.

Trump only started leading by huge margins this primary after getting indicted. Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson seeded a retarded narrative that americans should rally around Trump to somehow teach democrats a lesson.

That's not a retarded narrative. The second-best way to prevent the Democrats from engaging in dirty tricks is to demonstrate that those dirty tricks backfire.

Nominating Trump isn't a backfire. He's a divisive candidate and he wasn't a great president (better than Biden, but that's not saying much).

That isn’t a retarted narrative. Politics in America are coalition politics. You need to protect your flanks and even at times protect idiots in your flanks because if you they don’t vote you lose elections 49-51 instead of winning 51-49. Of course Trump isn’t exactly the flanks.

Further, everyone on the right believes pick your candidate Vivek, Desantis, even Liz Cheney would suddenly face the same treatment if they were the nominee. The only way to protect your movement is to rally around the flag.

Sure these are warfare arguments but politics has the same dynamics. In battle you either work as a team or our slaughtered as individuals.

I'd have preferred if they'd showed some spine instead, but Carlson in particular is a weathervane, not a keel.

What is the appropriate reaction to the leader of the party you prefer being politically persecuted? Set Trump aside for the moment, just imagine a country that you have no knowledge of or material stake in. If you heard that the former President had been indicted in a fashion that most members of that party thought was illegitimate, would you be at all surprised to hear that this created a backlash and hardened support for that candidate?

Ah, so people won't protest Republican voters from voting for their preferred candidate, so long as those people approve of that candidate.

Why not simply say "Vote for the Democratic candidate" instead? Because even if they dump Trump and pick Nikki Haley, or Vivek Ramaswamy, or A.N. Other, there is going to be "Literally Hitler!" reaction to whoever it is - or at least, Super Suppressors:

From the leader of the insurrection to a billionaire-turned-governor from North Dakota, the GOP’s large candidate field — down to seven candidates — features a wide array of figures, all of whom are antagonistic toward voting and democracy to varying degrees. No one skips out on suppressing the vote, all the way down to your average GOP voter suppression policies, like photo ID requirements.

There we go - don't vote for any of them, just vote for good old Joe, Republican voter, and we won't stop you exercising your right to vote!

Ah, so people won't protest Republican voters from voting for their preferred candidate, so long as those people approve of that candidate.

They won't protest Republican voters from voting for their preferred candidate, so long as that candidate doesn't have some very specific disqualifying infractions.

From the leader of the insurrection to a billionaire-turned-governor from North Dakota, the GOP’s large candidate field — down to seven candidates — features a wide array of figures, all of whom are antagonistic toward voting and democracy to varying degrees. No one skips out on suppressing the vote, all the way down to your average GOP voter suppression policies, like photo ID requirements.

Maybe the Republicans should stop supporting voter suppression if they don't want Dems to complain about it? Expecting the opposition party to like your candidates is a bridge too far (notably, we're not quoting anything the GOP says about Dem candidates), but nobody is trying to get Haley or DeSantis (or RFK Jr.) disqualified.

  • -17

See, your bit about voter suppression is precisely why I don't believe the blah about "just select a decent guy, for crying out loud". Why are you jumping to "of course the Republicans suppress voters" rather than "Yeah, some on the Democratic voting side do go overboard about that"?

No matter who is selected, there is going to be "If they're Republican, they're fascists".

I mean, you can believe what you like, but as I said, asking your opponents to not criticize your publicly acknowledged policy positions is a bit silly. Of course, the GOP doesn't call it voter suppression for the same reason Dems don't call it illegal immigration, but it doesn't change the fact the GOP is on record being in favor of making it harder to vote.

No matter who is selected, there is going to be "If they're Republican, they're fascists".

The analog here is the GOP talking about how Dems are socialists planning to destroy the American way of life, i.e. normal political marketing. It might be nice if people spoke in less hyperbolic terms, but the fact that they aren't isn't indicative of much.

  • -10

Of course, all of this is operating under the presumption that the Democrats' concern that the GOP has become increasingly illiberal and authoritarian is baseless hysteria. If it's not, then saying "if they're Republican, they're fascists" is not only predictable, it's fairly reasonable.

Like, say, if one of the more senior Republicans attempted a procedural coup and incited a mob to attack Congress. And then the entire party decided to go along with it and purged everyone who didn't follow suit.

It's not just the criticism, it's the ratfuckery. We're talking about constant escalation. You think it's a uniquely anti-Trump phenomenon but that doesn't seem plausible to people who've observed nothing but continual escalation this side of the millennium.

I've been here the whole time. Until 2014 or so I was a Republican.

I'm going to need you to be more specific about "ratfuckery", because my experience over the past 23 years has been an ever-escalating right-wing persecution complex at the same time as they've become increasingly underhanded and unhinged.

It's funny reading this post claiming the right has been ever-escalating their persecution complex, just two posts down from you gasping about how every republican is an insurrectionist.

Part of the Republican persecution complex is their inability to acknowledge their own transgressions.

  • -10
More comments

Maybe the Republicans should stop supporting voter suppression if they don't want Dems to complain about it?

The voter suppression narrative is BS that, where falsifiable, is falsified. It’s the democrats version of the kraken.

Not sure what you mean by that. GOP politicians are on-record as being in favor of targeted discouragement while GOP legislatures have been slapped down for passing targeted voter ID laws and contriving to re-disenfranchise felons in Florida (mentioned in the link above). That's to say nothing of things like suspicious patterns in polling place closures.

What is true, as near as I can tell, is that there isn't solid evidence for voter suppression efforts having a decisive impact on any particular election (anyone cares about). Partly this is because voting suppression tends to provoke short-term backlash, partly because more egregious efforts have been struck down, and partly because they're most likely to be implemented in already solidly red areas where they don't matter that.

But that's not a very strong defense. Regardless of how effective their efforts have been, the GOP continues to be openly supportive of making it harder to vote.

Or Democrats could, "simply," not invent novel legal theories to prosecute their political enemies. What's Game Theory predict if one side defects while the one side does not?

I think you end up with a situation where every GOP politician gets prosecuted on Novel Legal Theories until the GOP as a party quits nominating candidates

... that the other side will eventually defect, like Democrats are doing now.

I called that any form of trust-based equilibrium was toast way back when Reps stole a Supreme Court seat. I cannot overemphasize what an effect that event had in re-framing what politics was about and what the Republicans were like for politically engaged Dems who weren't already maximally cynical.

At the time I hoped that Democrats would defect in ways that merely rebalanced the court to correct for that theft, and let things return to a stable equilibrium otherwise. But, no, touching the court was considered beyond the pale by the highest levels of the Democratic party, so instead it's the lower levels of the party defecting in various corners in a decentralized way.

New hope is 'defeating' Trump would be enough to pacify those elements and get back to equilibrium. Not holding my breath though.

  • -21

I called that any form of trust-based equilibrium was toast way back when Reps stole a Supreme Court seat. I cannot overemphasize what an effect that event had in re-framing what politics was about and what the Republicans were like for politically engaged Dems who weren't already maximally cynical.

It goes both ways. McConnell refused to hold hearings on Garland because republicans had been convinced that democrats will never, ever deal with them honestly- and this prediction seems to have been true- by events occurring prior to Scalia’s death.

Reps stole a Supreme Court seat

Democrats did it first. Then act like wounded victims when the perfectly obvious response occurs. Explicitly told by the chief Republican what the consequences will be.

You may be right that this broke something important in American politics. I'd say both parties did it and wouldn't particularly single out the Republicans as being at fault.

Changing the filibuster rules and staling a Supreme Court seat are not remotely comparable.

  • -10

And yet they are compared.

Why do you think they aren't comparable and /u/TIRM does?

Escalation is not a great move for the country, even if it makes you personally feel good.

I'm sure Republicans can point to Bork and say it "really" started there. There a million other slights and violations of norms in the past.

Using smaller violations of norms in the past is never a good reason to justify larger ones now since, using the same logic, the other party can retaliate in an even bigger way.

The person you are arguing is on the record that they consider false rape accusations a legitimate political tactic. I don't think "escalation is bad" is going to persuade them.

The person you are arguing is on the record that they consider false rape accusations a legitimate political tactic.

Is that true @guesswho?

I think this is referring to this sequence

ymeskhout Trump got hit by two gag orders from two different judges [...] So with that out of the way, how does it apply to Trump? Judge Chutkan's order restricts him from making statements that "target" the prosecutor, court staff, and "reasonably foreseeable witnesses or the substance of their testimony". [...] Discrediting witnesses is harder to draw a clean line on, because again there's a gradient between discrediting and intimidating. I think Trump should have the absolute and unrestricted right to discuss any of his charges and discredit any evidence and witnesses against him.

guesswho I'm not sure why it's important to discredit a witness in the public eye, instead of at trial where you're allowed to say all those things directly to the judge and jury. Especially in light of the negative externalities to the system itself, ie if we allow defendants to make witnesses and judges and prosecutors and jurors lives a living nightmare right up until the line of 'definitely undeniably direct tampering', then that sets a precedent where no sane person wants to fill any of those roles, and the process of justice is impeded. [...]

sliders1234 [...] Girl who you had a drunken hook up texted you the next day saying how much fun she had with you last night. You ignore her text. 2 weeks later she claims rape. It’s in the newspaper. Suddenly your name is tarnished. Everyone in town now views your condo building as feeding money into your pocket. Sales slump. Now do you see why this hypothetical real estate developer would have a reason to hit back in the media? He’s being significantly punished (maybe leading to bankruptcy) without ever being found guilty in the court of law. Of course Trump has motivations to hit hard against the judge and prosecuting attorney. The more partisan they appear the more it makes him look better and get the marginal voter.

guesswho [...] I guess what I would say is that 1. that sees like a really narrow case [...] 2. I would hope a judge in that case wouldn't issue a blanket gag order [...] 3. yeah, there may have to be some trade-offs between corner-cases like this and making the system work in the median case. [...] I'm open to the idea that we should reform the system to make it less damaging to defendants who have not been convicted yet, but if we are deciding to care about that then these super-rich and powerful guys worrying about their reputations are way down on my list under a lot of other defendants who need the help more urgently.

That technically counts as "considering it fair that a defendant can be bound not to disparage a witness against them in a sexual assault case, even if the defendant is a politician and the rape accusation is false". But if that's the exchange @FCfromSSC is talking about it seems like a massive stretch to describe it that way.

Nope. It was on reddit, under his old handle, and about Kavanaugh. I don't have a link, though, so if he's willing to deny it, feel free to disregard as you please.

So literally some takes from 5 years ago and a different account, which, if I'm correct about which name you're implying guesswho used to post as, are more saying "in practice sexual assault accusations aren't being used in every political fight, so let's maybe hold off on trying drastic solutions to that problem until it's demonstrated that your proposed cure isn't worse than the disease".

Let he who has never posted a take that some people find objectionable cast the first stone.

More comments

Light the BGat Signal? Gattsuru has an encyclopedia of bad behavior, but you'd have to post it because he's been threatened for mentioning it.

More comments

No idea what they're talking about.

I'm sure they'll link something from 4 years ago but who knows what. It's all very tedious.

You were off by a year.

Being removed from a primary ballot in one state is much, much, much smaller than losing a Supreme Court justice.

  • -14

The stated reason for being removed from the primary ballot is that CO does not believe Trump is eligible to hold the office of POTUS. If the GOP nominates Trump, notwithstanding CO's lack of participation, for President, the same logic mandates that CO refuse to list Trump in the November election as GOP nominee. This isn't just about the primary, and claiming otherwise without further argument/support is either ignorant or malicious.

That seems like a logical conclusion, but the courts don't run on logic and everything about this case so far has run on obscure legal theories and precedents rather than logic.

Most specifically, there's nothing about this finding in this case that causes him to be barred from the general ballot, even if it makes sense that he should be based on this finding. AFAIK, there would still have to be a separate hearing and a separate judgement and a separate ruling in order to make that happen.

Maybe that's what will happen, maybe not; the USSC looks to be getting involved, so a lot could change between now and then. But either way, it's something that hasn't happened yet, so blaming people for doing it when they haven't is untoward.

It's not a "logical conclusion" - it's the actual holding of the CO Supreme Court. The relevant language is this (at pgs. 8-9):

We hold as follows:

• The Election Code allows the Electors to challenge President Trump’s status as a qualified candidate based on Section Three. Indeed, the Election Code provides the Electors their only viable means of litigating whether President Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section Three.

• Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for Section Three’s disqualification provision to attach, and Section Three is, in that sense, self-executing.

• Judicial review of President Trump’s eligibility for office under Section Three is not precluded by the political question doctrine.

• Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court committed reversible error.

• The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of Congress’s January 6 Report into evidence at trial.

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”

• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump “engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions.

• President Trump’s speech inciting the crowd that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, was not protected by the First Amendment.

The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

(bolding added for emphasis)

The chief holding is that, under Colorado's interpretation of federal law, Trump is disqualified from the office of President. The result of that finding under the facts of the case at bar is that Trump is disqualified from the primary ballot. However, the underlying holding is already sufficient for the CO Secretary of State to subsequently keep Trump off the November, 2024 ballot, as well as for the CO state government to claim nullification of any action by a future second Trump administration. It would require a second case affirmatively overturning this case in order for Trump to be placed on the CO presidential ballot in 2024.

The logic of the case must therefore hold that he is not eligible for the general in Colorado

What number of states removing Trump from the primary ballot will count for you as being larger than losing a Supreme Court Justice? What number of states removing Trump from the general ballot will count for you as being larger than losing a Supreme Court Justice? Set a goal post in the here and now, before we get to the culmination of this trend, so that we can look back and gauge whether they ended up escalating or not.

What number of states removing Trump from the primary ballot will count for you as being larger than losing a Supreme Court Justice?

I don't know, maybe 500?

Given that doing that would pretty much guarantee the Republicans a landslide win for whichever candidate they run instead and also for the Senate and House, this would have basically zero negative impact on their political aspirations and instead probably help them a lot.

Whereas, a Supreme Court seat is probably the most influential and consequential position in the entire government, it's the holy grail of political footballs, it's why you turn out to elect your side's president even if you find him tiresome or awful and don't really care who governs beyond that.

  • -11

Whereas, a Supreme Court seat is probably the most influential and consequential position in the entire government, it's the holy grail of political footballs, it's why you turn out to elect your side's president

Big oof. You're not going to convince anyone that it's not an escalation unless 500 states remove Trump from the ballot. The fact that you think this is even a plausible response is pretty indicative of bad faith, since you're all up and down this thread saying, 'Don't worry, it's just one, and it's just a primary,' to now see that you actually think that it being literally all of them for the general election would be totally fine. Like you've pre-planned an execution of the Law of Merited Impossibility.

Becoming a banana republic is clearly an escalation compared to parliamentary tactics/heresthetics.

First time:

What number of states removing Trump from the primary ballot will count for you as being larger than losing a Supreme Court Justice?

Second time:

You're not going to convince anyone that it's not an escalation unless 500 states remove Trump from the ballot.

Don't move the goalposts and then call me a freak for aiming at the original ones. I answered teh question I was asked, not the new standard you made up here.

More comments

I called that any form of trust-based equilibrium was toast way back when Reps stole a Supreme Court seat. I cannot overemphasize what an effect that event had in re-framing what politics was about and what the Republicans were like for politically engaged Dems who weren't already maximally cynical.

I think you can over-emphasize its importance. The political tit-for-tat and flouting national norms goes back a long time. But I would politely suggest anyone looking to the Garland -> Gorsuch -> Kavanaugh arc of the Supreme Court as the only relevant history is either misinformed, or using deeply-motivated history.

As some examples:

The modern history of contentious Supreme Court Justice Nominations really starts with Robert Bork.

Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh (and perhaps even Amy Comey Barrett) were subject to far more contentious nominations than anything Democratic appointees have ever been subject to.

Bush v Gore probably did more than any other case to convince the public that the Court is a political actor.

The Roberts opinion affirming the Constitutionality of Obamacare probably comes second.

Looking past SCOTUS: Russiagate pee tape accusations and George Floyd had a far more radicalizing effect on the Left than Garland being denied a seat.

Politics is of course a two-way relationship, but if we were to arbitrarily tally up norms broken in the last 30 years (or 40, or whatever), I think it would generally be the left breaking more of them. A lot of the Right's exceptions would be contained to Bush's actions over the Iraq War, with many of Trump's actions being broadly disdained by the GOP. (They wouldn't even let him declare an emergency to build a border wall.)

Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh (and perhaps even Amy Comey Barrett) were subject to far more contentious nominations than anything Democratic appointees have ever been subject to.

The difference being that those are names of 3 Supreme Court justices.

Yes, the Democrats did reject one Republican nominee 35 years ago. But he was rejected after an open and pulib hearing and vote, and then the next Republican nominee that replaced him was unanimously approved. Reagan still filled his seat.

The issue is not that Garland had a contentious hearing, or even that he was not confirmed at his hearing. The issue is that he had no hearing and no vote, the Republicans just pretended he didn't exist.

There has indeed always been acrimony and fighting over SC seats, and using the rules to ratfuck the other party wherever possible.

But this one went beyond the established rules in a way that was genuinely surprising/baffling/outraging to people at the time. A big fight with lots of mud slinging and feet dragging was expected, what happened was just weird

And as such, I really do believe it expanded the borders of what types of ratfucking and acrimony could be reasonably entertained.

  • -10

If he had a hearing but they never were going to vote yes would that have satisfied you?

If they then went on to unanimously elect Obama's next nominee, which is what happened in the Bork case, then sure, that would be fine.

Bork's rejection was unprecedented and for fundamentally political reasons. You can argue why you think it was justified, but that's not the relevant question: we're talking about the long-escalating fight over norms. As such:

But this one went beyond the established rules in a way that was genuinely surprising/baffling/outraging to people at the time.

This was also true of Bork's hearing. Everyone admitted he had one of the finest legal minds of his generation and was immeninently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. (It is the ultimate irony that it was Biden who lead the push against Bork at the time, and has had to deal with the consequences.)

I don't doubt that Republicans' treatment of Garland was an escalation, although I quibble with some of these details. (I always hear it said that it was appaling that the GOP never even held hearings -- but I don't think, if they had voted no after some show trials, that it would really have helped anyone feel better.)

I'm also not arguing here that Democrats are uniquely bad and Republicans have never fouught back. But in the modern context I don't think the Garland nomination is this uniquely radicalizing moment. Probably in the top ten. Maybe it cracks the top five.

I always hear it said that it was appaling that the GOP never even held hearings -- but I don't think, if they had voted no after some show trials, that it would really have helped anyone feel better

If they had voted 'no', and then unanimously voted yes on Obama's nest appointment, as is what actually happened with Bork, people would have felt a lot better.

No one is particularly attached to Garland in particular, they're attached to the seat.

They wouldn't have voted yes on Obama's next appointment. They made it clear that they wanted the seat, not to slight Garland specifically.

I'm not saying Republicans didn't really do anything provocative. I'm saying that the specific is irrelevant.

when Reps stole a Supreme Court seat

Stole from whom, exactly? Who did that seat belong to? Because from my recollection, the Senate, that august body of 100, decided through its rules that they didn't like the nominee enough to even bother voting on him. And it is the Senate that gets to decide who sits on the court. If the seat is said to belong to anyone, or any group, it surely belongs to the Senate, and they did with their property exactly what they wanted done with it.

Stole from whom, exactly?

The president gets to nominate SC justices. Customarily (see @guesswho's remark about trust), the Senate almost always accepts them, even when the president is from an opposing party. It has rejected them on occasion (or nominees have been withdrawn when it was clear they were headed for rejection). Garland was neither rejected nor withdraw. McConnell simply refused to hold a hearing or consider the nomination.

Yes, in theory, the Senate can do whatever it wants. In reality, what McConnell did was extremely unusual, compounded by the handling of ACB's nomination making it clear that his arguments with respect to Garland were unambiguously in bad faith. If you keep mashing the defect button, don't be surprised when your opposition starts Noticing.

The president gets to nominate SC justices

And nobody is arguing that this was disrupted.

In reality, what McConnell did was extremely unusual, compounded by the handling of ACB's nomination making it clear that his arguments with respect to Garland were unambiguously in bad faith.

It was perfectly usual, in that it was the usual escalation that can be traced back to Bork, at the very least. This was thirty years of chickens coming home to roost, and was perfectly in line with previous escalations from both sides.

If you keep mashing the defect button, don't be surprised when your opposition starts Noticing.

YES! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! Except it was the Republicans who finally Noticed, and truly defected rather than be played for chumps.

You still haven't answered the question. To whom does the stolen seat belong? From my perspective, it belongs to Gorsuch, because he's the one who the Senate confirmed.

All of these problems are directly downstream from 17A, by the way.

And nobody is arguing that this was disrupted.

I am. I'm arguing it. Obama nominated a candidate and McConnell sat on it for a year.

it was the usual escalation that can be traced back to Bork, at the very least

Bork always gets wheeled out as the excuse, but it's total bullshit. Bork was rejected (unusual but far from unprecedented) and replaced with... another Reagan nominee. Who was confirmed. In other words, what we'd expect to happen. If McConnell had specific issues with Garland as a nominee, he should have held a hearing and voiced them. Of course, he didn't, because he didn't have a problem with Merrick Garland. He openly declared he wasn't going to consider any nominee.

You still haven't answered the question. To whom does the stolen seat belong?

The seat doesn't 'belong' to anyone because it's not a piece of property, but by long-standing American political norms it was Obama's prerogative to fill the seat. Word games and playing dumb about idiomatic use of the word 'stole' can't duck the GOP's flagrant breach of trust.

Except it was the Republicans who finally Noticed, and truly defected rather than be played for chumps.

That would imply that the Republicans weren't defecting constantly, when in fact that was pretty the standard playbook since the end of the cold war.

Obama nominated a candidate and McConnell sat on it for a year.

So what?. Obama nominated someone and sent the nominee to the Senate. The Senate didn't confirm the nominee, and made it clear he wouldn't be confirmed at all. It was Obama's prerogative to nominate someone, and he could have withdrawn the nomination and tried someone else, but chose not to in order to make people like you think that it was somehow stolen.

The seat doesn't 'belong' to anyone because it's not a piece of property, but by long-standing American political norms it was Obama's prerogative to fill the seat.

It doesn't belong to anyone, and it was not stolen. The President nominates, the Senate fills. There's no reason why the Senate must consider any nominee, and may reject or refuse to consider any of them as they please. This is called the separation of powers, and while it hasn't had a good time of things, there are still some places where it is relevant.

Your political norms are just that, norms, not law, not even rules, and certainly not constitutional directive. They were broken when Bork was rejected on ideological grounds, rather than competency grounds. That was the first major escalation, and it has gone back and forth since then. Other norms were violated and are no longer normal. Of course the latest round is more significant than the original offense, that's why it's escalating.

That would imply that the Republicans weren't defecting constantly, when in fact that was pretty the standard playbook since the end of the cold war.

Better than implying it's only Republicans defecting, when it is clearly tit for tat. I'd be much more sympathetic to the Democrats if it wasn't their party who reduced the Senate threshold for nomination in order to appoint dozens of Obama judges, but I understand they did that in order to get around disagreements from the minority who would not confirm those judges. To get hoisted by your own petard is shameful enough, there's no need for further griping.

To deny that denying Obama a replacement for RBG was not a major escalation by the GOP is to deny obvious reality.

“But they started it with Bork” doesn’t mean McConnell didn’t choose a massive escalation some decades later to change the balance of justices, which the former case did not do and was never intended to.

And I say that as someone quite happy with a strong conservative majority.

More comments

Yeah and the august body that is the Colorado Supreme Court decided that Trump is ineligible, what’s your point? Both actions are ‘legal’ (albeit in the latter case for now).

Because from my recollection, the Senate, that august body of 100, decided through its rules that they didn't like the nominee enough to even bother voting on him.

... No, that's not what happened.

It's exactly what happened. The Senate chose not to vote on one nominee, which is their right. All 100 members voted on the rules for that session, and all 100 members voted on who would lead them. The leader followed those rules and simply chose not to vote on an undesirable nominee.

You didn't answer my question, though. From whom was the seat stolen? To whom did it belong? You seem to think Obama was entitled to it, that YOU were entitled to it, but I'd rather hear you speak for yourself.

FWIW I have a similar feeling. The Supreme Court seat was a major move, and just because I have benefitted from it doesn't change the reality of how serious it was. Much of this feels downstream of that.

It should be apparent by now that Garland was not the middle-of-the-road moderate he was painted as in the media. Nothing stopped Obama from nominating someone more palatable to the Senate.

That's true, but it's immaterial to the gamesmanship of refusing to confirm a justice. The people doing it weren't seers predicting the future, they were changing precedent around confirmation as a political trap card.

Who do you imagine the congressional/senate GOP would have approved of? It’s clear they wouldn’t accept anyone who didn’t appear likely to reverse Roe, which was obviously the red line.

I think they would have approved Neil Gorsuch.

Obviously Obama didn't want to nominate Gorsuch, which was his prerogative as President. But it's obviously untrue that the Senate would have rejected any possible nomination.

I don't think that's clear, and if that's the case, the obvious political move would be to nominate somebody who leans conservative on most issues except Roe to reduce the expected payoff of the gamble they were taking.

It’s only a major move because we don’t actually live in a rule of law land at that level. Realistically words should have meaning but “living constitutional theory” meant the SC could just do whatever they want and act as a legislative body.

The GOP didn’t do that. The Dems created a whole philosophy that turned the SC into more than it was suppose to be. The GOP didn’t make the SC the supreme legislative body.

We can reach back as far as we want to figure out who the real villain is but, realistically, it's just an escalation of what's been going on forever. The Warren Court was another major episode/era of course, but there have been more.

I just think it'd be foolish to not recognize how angry this move made Democrats and how it may have changed their approach. Many of them called for far more aggression in the aftermath.

This is useful if one recognizes that moves can also make republicans angry and change their approach. Specifically, it is useful in that it shows you that the escalation spiral cannot be halted or controlled by the available levers of social policy, with disaster the likely outcome.

Likewise, it is useful if one does not recognize the above. In that case, it is useful in that it cements a narrative that Republicans are the bad guys, by promoting the unspoken norm that it's only an escalation when Republicans do it.

Neither the Dems nor the GOP did that. The Supreme Court has been supreme since 1803, and it's always been calvinball because it can't not be.

That's a whole different issue. I am all for punishing the dems, but I don't think you'll end up doing that by nominating Trump.

He who wants to own the libs must take care not to get owned by the libs.

I have a lot of doubt about Trump's ability to win in 2024, but I can't think of any better option for Republicans to run. Who do you think the Republicans have who would have a better chance of winning the general election than Trump does? Haley slightly outperforms him against Biden in swing states according to a recent poll, but for me that's an "I'll believe it when I see it" kind of thing because to me Haley seems pretty devoid of charisma* and every single President since maybe George H.W. Bush has had at least some level of charisma, whether it's the Clinton and Obama "cool young guy" thing, the George W. Bush "down-home guy you can imagine having a beer with" thing, the Trump "funny macho troll" thing, or the Biden "cantankerous old guy who's willing to talk a bit of shit" thing.

But maybe I'm overrating charisma, or underrating how much of it the non-Trump Republican candidates have.

*Which is not entirely her fault, I think. It's just that to the viewer's ape brain, her combativeness works less well because she is a woman than it would if she were a man.

I have a lot of doubt about Trump's ability to win in 2024, but I can't think of any better option for Republicans to run.

I can't either, but that is itself an indictment of Trump, Trump-Ism, and the Trump-Ist Republican Party. It's been eight years since Trump started his takeover, and there is no credible successor to his role. There is no political, or even peripheral non-political, figure who is sufficiently loved and respected by the majority of MAGA Republicans to rally behind. Without Donald Trump, the whole idea collapses. Donald hasn't selected and groomed a successor, the party hasn't hyped up anyone who matters half enough to pull it off, his followers haven't congregated and selected someone. Desantis isn't Trump, Haley isn't Trump, Cotton isn't Trump. Essentially everyone else has taken sides against Trump at some point. The best pick might be one of his kids, but I'm not sure any of them have the gravitas to pull it off, and Don hasn't done nearly enough to build them up on their own.

It seems like "picking a successor" is very low-hanging fruit that isn't very often picked in US politics. Or am I missing some good examples? Is there an argument that Reagan did that successfully with H.W., and then H.W. did that successfully with George W., as part of an intentional plan, or is that typically taken to be happenstance and situational maneuvering?

It seems like planning your successor, if you are a popular president, is a really easy and obvious thing to do. But I guess the issue is getting everyone else on board with that. There's a lot more demand for the Office of the Presidency than there is supply...

Who do you think the Republicans have who would have a better chance of winning the general election than Trump does?

I think the answer to that question is basically 'Anyone else on the stage at the Republican debates'.

It's not as if voters need to like a candidate in order to vote for them, polarization is too high for that to matter. Either side could run a sack of potatoes with an 'R' or a 'D' sewn onto it and get 45% of the vote (and this isn't even irrational, which party's priorities the candidate will be a conduit for has a much greater impact than variance in individual competence/character).

The problem with Trump is the same as the problem with Clinton - the other side hates and fears him so much that running him drives up turnout on the other side. Anyone who doesn't do that will likely have a better electoral outcome.

Democrats did that with Fetterman. Maybe he really did have stroke issues but now that he’s woken up I don’t mind him as a politician as he’s pissing off progs on multiple issues including Israel. He’s basically declared himself as not having the woke mind virus.

Hates Ticktock and thinks it’s ruining the young (sounds kind of maga). https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/fetterman-argues-tiktok-is-warping-young-peoples-views-on-israel-hamas-started-this/vi-AA1lNkWO

I don’t have a problem selling US Steel to Japs but also Maga protectionism. 98% of merger arbs go thru (witness X) if it dips on these concerns there is likely a trade.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/19/john-fetterman-vote-block-us-steel-sale

Anti-immigration

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/is-john-fetterman-changing-or-were-progressives-mistaken-about-him-yes/ar-AA1lLlBd

Some of these might be things Sanders would support but not woke.

I think the answer to that question is basically 'Anyone else on the stage at the Republican debates'.

Spoken like a man who wants a democrat in the White House in 2025. Nobody else can get elected because everyone else sucks. Haley is a neocon pipe dream. DeSantis blew his load too early. These people can't overcome the demographic advantages of Democrats after decades of unrestricted importation of democrat voters.

Donald is the only proven loser amongst them in a presidential election, though. It’s not that criticism of them isn’t valid, it’s that much of it applies to Trump (who will preserve most ‘neocon’ foreign policy to the extent that it exists) and again, Trump isn’t a guaranteed winner either.

Trump is harder on China, on immigration, on NATO, than any neocon I've ever heard of, or any other politician in my lifetime. You can't make me believe that there's anyone else like him, it that he'd like anyone else, and you certainly can't make me believe that any of the more palatable Republicans can match his willingness to defy the uniparty.

At least, not until I see it for myself from someone else.

A quick glance at Commentary doesn’t suggest that Trump is tougher on China than the neocons. Of the major neoconservatives most other than Max Boot (who completely renounced neoconservatism years ago, hates Bibi, considers the Iraq/Afghanistan wars major mistakes now etc) are harshly anti-China. Commentary is literally publishing articles claiming the Chinese government is training the Iranian revolutionary guard, for a neocon that’s tantamount to calling for a declaration of war lmao. Kristol is tough on China on Twitter. Podhoretz was highly critical of Blinken’s ‘outreach’ efforts to China over the summer, aligning with Trump.

Podhoretz

None of those people have even tried to get elected once. Not even as dog catcher. Trump ran for president in 2000, at least, and intended to get elected.

They are not politicians, they are pundits, and I don't care to compare politicians to pundits.

Talk is cheap. They can say all these things, but will oppose any concrete actions against China.

... why can Trump overcome that supposed demographic advantage, again?

Because he motivated nonvoters in ways unseen in decades.

The problem with Trump is the same as the problem with Clinton - the other side hates and fears him so much that running him drives up turnout on the other side. Anyone who doesn't do that will likely have a better electoral outcome.

I believe this is now fully baked in for all Republican candidates. Haley gets GoodGuy points at the moment because she's a loser that has zero chance of beating Trump. If she were nominated, she would immediately be a Nazi, dangerous to our sacred trans children and innocent asylum seekers. Normal, completely ordinary policies from a decade ago are now treated as signs of literal fascism. We're going to need a long period of de-escalation before a Republican winning the Presidency isn't treated like a reason for riots.

I mean yeah the rhetoric is always going to be that whoever is on the other side of the ballot is pure evil, that's just campaigning.

But what matters is how much the voters viscerally feel that rhetoric to be true, and how motivated they are by it. I absolutely do not believe that Democratic voters would be equally motivated to hate and turn out against any other candidate the way they are for Trump, there's a long shared trauma around the Trump name at this point that other candidates lack.

I sort of feel like maybe there's a blind spot here among the anti-democrat crowd, where they believe (or need to believe) that Trump is pretty normal and unremarkable and everything the other side tries to throw at him are lies and exaggerations. And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, but I think it can blind people to teh fact that the other side does not feel this way, and actually believes and feels the things they are saying about how much of a unique and horrible threat he is.

If you believed that your opponents believed that Trump was perfectly normal and unobjectionable, then the only conclusion you could reach is that the other side is happy to lie outlandishly and histrionically about whoever is heading the GOP in order to get power, and the entire act in insincere from the highest halls of power to the lowest level voter. And it feels like some people are coming to that conclusion, implicitly or explicitly.

But as usual for cases like this, what's actually going on is that the other side doesn't believe what you believe, and is actually acting pretty normally in ways that you would recognize and probably do yourself, if you did believe what they believed.

Disagreements about matters of fact are a far more common and parsimonious explanation than one half of the country suddenly diverging from human nature to become elaborate liars larping every moment of their political engagement for a decade.

the only conclusion you could reach is that the other side is happy to lie outlandishly and histrionically about whoever is heading the GOP in order to get power

I remember that Mitt Romney was going to bring back slavery, tortured his dog, and never paid his taxes.
I remember when MAGA chuds tried to lynch a Black actor in Chicago and people who expressed doubts about it were outlandishly and histrionically accused of being pro-lynching. Then the accuser laughed it off because he never believed in the first place, it was just effective "rhetoric" for someone who treats every conversation as a struggle session, and every conversation partner as a victim to be insincerely manipulated.

And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, but I think it can blind people to teh fact that the other side does not feel this way, and actually believes and feels the things they are saying about how much of a unique and horrible threat he is.

People are perfectly able to convince themselves of ideas by motivated reasoning when the idea is convenient for them to believe. "Lying" is probably the closest word we have to this. Or maybe "motivated reckless reasoning" or some such.

Okay, so they aren't mostly liars. The ones in the media actually are, but the typical sort-of-engaged voter is not.

But, this means they are something more insidious than a liar. They are people who easily let themselves be convinced that [current republican candidate] is an existential threat to democracy, a dogwhistling cryptofascist, etc, etc. They may not be lying, but they so thoroughly selectively lack skepticism that they let bad news headlines convince them that Mike Pence electro-shocks gay children.

Yes, you and them disagree about matters of fact, and at least one of you is wrong.

I myself am not an optimist, I suspect that they are wrong, you are wrong, and I am wrong about most of our beliefs on all of these topics. We simply don't have the level of truth-preserving information channels it would take to expect to consistently do better than that as a society.

I absolutely do not believe that Democratic voters would be equally motivated to hate and turn out against any other candidate the way they are for Trump

Sure, but Republican voters are also probably not going to be equally motivated to turn out for any other candidate the way they are for Trump.

The thing is that bonus Trump voters in guaranteed red states aren’t worth anything, while less Biden voters in purple states are.

Boosting voter turnout in Wyoming or Arkansas is worthless for the GOP.

Perhaps.

My impression is that Republicans are motivated by a sense of crisis around a pervasive culture war that seeps into every nook and cranny of life and lies behind every public and private institution. The election was stolen by a hundred different election officials and a thousand collaborators covering for them, teachers are transing your kids and teaching them to be Marxists, immigrants are pouring over the boarder and taking your government services, etc. A diffuse, broad crisis that requires decisive and far-reaching leadership to combat.

Whereas I think Democrats have very much focused their own sense of crisis around Trump specifically, claiming that he personally is a threat to democracy and decency and needs to be defeated at all costs.

My impression is that removing Trump from the equation dissipates the sense of crisis and urgency felt by the Democrats, but not that felt by the Republicans.

Republicans may not love the new nominee, but they'll be driven to vote for him out of the fear of the ongoing existential crisis anyway, in the same way that Democrats are historically unenthusiastic about Biden but are turning out anyway to vote against Trump.

I could of course be wrong, but that's my sense of the field.

Of course, all Republicans are "fascists", but do you truly not see a difference in the tenor and hyperbole over Trump?

I do think a different candidate would be much harder for the Democrats to attack in this way. Trump makes it easy because he is an obviously narcissistic prick.

Of course, all Republicans are "fascists", but do you truly not see a difference in the tenor and hyperbole over Trump?

Not really, no, just the effects of increased polarization driven by other factors, mainly social media. I absolutely think the polarization would be no less with any other Republican.

I think replacing Trump with DeSantis would immediately result in the rhetoric being that it's even scarier, that it's Trump-but-competent, that Project 2025 is still a danger to Our Democracy, and so on. Maybe they couldn't whip up the populace quite the same, I don't know, but the attempt would exist and I would still expect riots if any Republican wins in 2024.

Yeah, the attacks on DeSantis in 2020–2021 made me realize that whoever the Republicans nominated, they'd be attacked mercilessly by the media.

It's somewhat sad that people seem to have forgotten the pandemic so quickly. I view DeSantis as a hero for what he did in Florida.

It truly is amazing the collective amnesia

Exactly correct - the rhetoric will be like that no matter who is on the ballot, that's what campaigning is like these days, but it won't actually energize Dems to get out the vote if it's not aimed at Trump, meaning it's an advantage to Reps.

*Which is not entirely her fault, I think. It's just that to the viewer's ape brain, her combativeness works less well because she is a woman than it would if she were a man.

I remember when some people ran with this idea, trained actors to perform a gender swapped Hillary Trump debate, and it did not turn out the way they had assumed it would.

Haley seems like a mirage. There hasn’t been constant attacks against her and her record isn’t great. Vivek is right that she is corrupt.

She is a trap.

Trump goes down in the polls if he's found guilty, which he very well may be. Nimrata Haley is complete trash (pro war and anti anonymity), DeSantis is the obvious right choice.

DeSantis is the obvious right choice.

If I had pearls, I'd be clutching them right now 😁

Vote for DeathSantis? The monster responsible for turning Florida into such a fascist state, representative organisations issued travel advisory warnings to LGBT+ and BIPOC people about visiting there?

Why, even I - white-skinned as I am - might be in peril because I speak with an accent!

Travel to all areas of Florida should be done with extreme caution as it can be particularly unsafe for people of color, LGBTQIA+ communities and individuals who speak with an accent, and international travelers. Due to unconstitutional legislation signed by Governor Ron DeSantis and supported by Legislative Leadership, every county in Florida poses a heightened risk of harassment, possible detainment, and potential family separation based on racial profiling.

In Florida, routine daily activities for those who cannot immediately prove United States Citizenship and lawful residency at all times may result in devastating consequences. These consequences include arrest for operating a vehicle, no matter the state you are from, reduced access to healthcare services, and compromised safety. Exercise extra caution if you are over 6 weeks pregnant due to restrictions on reproductive health services*.

It is recommended to consult with a licensed attorney if you fall into any of the above mentioned groups before traveling to Florida in order to assess the level of danger you may encounter in being searched, questioned, and/or arrested.

Since we dast not venture into the Heart of Darkness that is Tallahassee and parts east, west, north and south, you suggest that the beast who dens there is fit to be considered as leader of the great nation of the United States of America? Gasp! Swoon! Amaze and alarm! 🤣

(*Call me an out-of-touch dinosaur, but I can't honestly imagine pregnant travellers deciding that hey, since I'm visiting Disney World, might as well fit a spur of the moment abortion in while I'm here!)

It doesn’t matter. Yes, NYT journalists would care as much, but your average ‘moderate’ undecided blue-leaning voter doesn’t think DeSantis is near as much of a fascist as Trump and it seems highly unlikely the press can replicate 9 years of anti-Trump messaging in the year before an election, even at maximum effort.

your average ‘moderate’ undecided blue-leaning voter doesn’t think DeSantis is near as much of a fascist as Trump

"Not as much" is not the same as "not a fascist".

but your average ‘moderate’ undecided blue-leaning voter doesn’t think DeSantis is near as much of a fascist as Trump

What are you basing this on? Is there polling on this?

Nimarata, not Nimrata. Two a's.

Three As, actually.

How do I get that wrong. I should delete my account in shame.

The problem with DeSantis is that his record of legislation, rhetoric, and stunts is 'evil' enough by progressive/Dem standards that once they were educated about him in the General election, he might drive up Democratic turnout at the polls almost as much as Trump does.

What the Republicans should do if they want to win is put up some boring bog-standard fiscal conservative. Run Mitt Romney again or something. Republicans won't be excited about him, but it's not like they're going to vote for a democrat.

Political pundits have been wondering for years how Democrats have such low approval for Biden and really don't want him to run, yet also turn out to vote for him and his party consistently and plan to support him 100%. The cause for this unusual state of affairs is the hatred and fear of Trump, serving as a rallying point to turn every election cycle into a crusade. No Dems are going to step out of line or tolerate their friends doing so while a second Trump term is on the table.

Take away that rallying point, and the whole thing could collapse. Dems could remember how much they are uninspired by Biden, and not show up to the polls. The long-expected fight for the soul of the party between the old-guard classical liberals and the young progressives, which has been suppressed by mutual hatred of Trump for most of a decade, could finally boil over into open conflict in the middle of an election, ensuring an easy win and Congressional landslide for Reps.

There's been lots of talk over the last 7 years about how Trump and MAGA represent a major realignment for the Republican party, and how the chaos of that realignment has fractured and weakened the party in ways that turned expected wins into losses. Democrats are also long-overdue for such a realignment, Republicans just need to get out of the way.

Mittens had binders full of women and was a high school bully and corporate buzzsaw (and today he'd probably be tarred with buying up homes to charge them high rents).

Sure, all of which is a lot less sensationalist and a lot less motivating than 'literally a fascist, literally a rapist, going to end democracy as we know it'.

I think it'd be good for the country to have a centrist like Mitt Romney in charge just so that everyone can calm down for a bit.

The worry for Republicans, and why they won't nominate a centrist, is that centrist Republicans have completely caved to globalist pressure on core issues like immigration, Covid lockdowns, and LGBT celebration.

I agree with you that the media will lay off any Republican who defects on core issues. Want to cut taxes for the rich and start a couple new wars like George Bush? No problem. Want to stop illegal immigration and shut down youth gender transition? Jihad.

But we actually had Romney as a candidate and he was smeared as a misogynistic devil, "vulture capitalist", etc. The mildest possible Republican was the presidential candidate and it didn't matter. They'll be just as hysterical in their smears. Then, years later, they'll reminisce about how Republicans used to not be so bad, like Romney.

I think it'd be good for the country to have a centrist like Mitt Romney in charge just so that everyone can calm down for a bit.

No. Blues do not get to veto Red leaders by threat of violence or institutional destruction. They have broken the social contract. They have to lose, and the correct play is to either hold position or escalate until that happens.

They have to lose, and the correct play is to either hold position or escalate until that happens.

What if they can't lose. What if we "escalate" as far as we can, and still get crushed utterly?

Trump is probably the most centrist candidate, if you look at actual polling on the issues. He's only "not centrist" in that he dissents from the nondemocratic "Washington Consensus" established by entrenched by would-be technocrats, bureaucracy, and special interests.

That's a great point. Trump is a dissident, not a radical. It's okay to be conservative as long as you are part of the blob. (Witness, the rehabilitation of George W. Bush). Being a dissident is never allowed.

I agree with you that the media will lay off any Republican who defects on core issues.

They won't lay off. They didn't lay off Romney himself last time he ran. They want a "moderate" Republican to run so they win either way, but they'd still rather win big with the Democrat.

They didn't lay off Romney himself last time he ran.

It's an issue of scale isn't it? The media treatment of Romney (binders full of women!!!) was stupid, but it never approached anything like what we're seeing now. It's like the difference between conventional and thermonuclear weapons.

Our current president said to a largely-Black crowd at a campaign rally that Romney would put them "back in chains".

The spectre of Republican fascism is exactly what Democrats use to keep their internal realignment from happening. It's a useful idea for the people running the party, and will be employed against any Republican who runs. Go talk to regular Democrats, they might be worked up against Trump specifically, for the moment, but they also bemieve that most if not all Republicans are complicit, and just as dangerous. (Remember in 2012 that Joe Biden campaigned by saying Mitt Romney would put black people back in chains.)

At this point elections aren't about persuading mythical moderates, but turnout. A Romney Republican would lose for the same reason that Romney lost: he couldn't excite the base to vote. A lack of enthusiasm can be made up for by machine politics getting out the vote, but it's fairly obvious by now that Democrats are far more advanced than Republicans here.

The ground is already laid for DeSantis or Ramaswamy to be declared as fascist, existential threats. (Aside: in high school one of my history teachers proudly displayed posters saying "RESIST THE FASCIST BUSH REGIME," which she breezily claimed were of historical interest and thus not political.) The only Republicans who won't be so castigated are anti-Republicans like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger. (And even then... -- remember how John McCain used to be quite friendly with John Stewart and the Daily Show, until he ran for president, and then became was suddenly an extremist with no charity afforded?)

One clear pattern of the last 5 election cycles is that Democrats have shown they are much more willing to turn out for any D on the ballot than Republicans for any R. The primaries were rigged against Bernie from the start, but he still dutifully tells his people to vote against the bigger evil. Trump wins his primary handily, and a swarm of Republican officials declare that they won't support him, or are only voting under duress.

Voter turnout surging on the left when Trump runs suggests that it does matter who the GOP runs, though. The average purple state moderate isn’t in perfect lockstep with the NYT or Washington Post approved opinion.

Of course for the left DeSantis and Haley will be fascists, just like Bush and Reagan and Romney before them. But that doesn’t mean blue turnout will be as high as it is when Trump is on the ballot. The gamble is, of course, because red turnout will be lower too.

Liz Cheney would be a fascists if the GOP moved to her. All her dad’s sins could be brought up as a sign of her fascism. The neocons would reunite around her. Half the right would probably agree with the left that she’s a fascists.

Not sure on McCain. I just think Cheney would be an easy target for fascism claims once she’s no longer a useful idiot ally.

Run Mitt Romney again or something.

What DeSantis is today, Romney was twelve years ago. This is a dishonest request, because after Romney I can't ever trust Democrats to tell the truth about a republican candidate. They're going to go apeshit over all of them, even the Mormon former Massachusetts governor.

The long-expected fight for the soul of the party between the old-guard classical liberals and the young progressives, which has been suppressed by mutual hatred of Trump for most of a decade, could finally boil over into open conflict in the middle of an election, ensuring an easy win and Congressional landslide for Reps.

Isn't this basically what already happened in 2016? You're predicting the show we've just watched. It wasn't until after Trump's win that Democrats got their shit together and whipped their ranks into line.

They're going to go apeshit over all of them

This is very much not my recollection of that election, what are you talking about?

Like, they made a big joke out of 'binders full of women', but that's the normal tomfoolery every campaign gets up to (remember Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?). Obviously they weren't going to say that their opponent is cool and good actually, but I don't think the rhetoric was anything like what's being lobbied against Trump, and the Dem voters certainly didn't have the same visceral hatred and existential dread about him.

So I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

Romney did pretty good in that election, winning more of the popular vote than Trump did in 2020, and that was running against a historic and widely loved incumbent.

This is very much not my recollection of that election, what are you talking about?

/

The current sitting President of the United States, then VP campaigned against Romney by claiming he would put African-Americans back "in chains". Romney was campaigning against hormonal birth control, somehow. Romney's VP pick faced attack ads that had him wheeling grandma off a cliff. Ann Romney was a repeated target of pretty shitty media coverage that conveniently intersected with her multiple sclerosis. People were absolutely sure Romney-Ryan were going to ban gay sex, somehow! The IRS leaked NOM donation records that just conveniently happened to have his donations included, and just so happened to get delivered to the HRC.

Harry Reid famously and falsely claimed that Romney'd paid zero taxes on the floor of Congress, and after it had been widely distributed, widely believed, and at cost proven wrong, then years later said he had no regrets because "he lost, didn't he"!

Yes, like I said, campaigning.

This is all markedly less vitriolic and existential-threat-invoking than 'literally a fascist, literally a rapist, literally the agent of foreign powers, will end democracy as we know it'.

I think DeSantis' problem is that he is also a charisma vacuum. If he wants to have a credible chance to win the general election, he needs to spend the next few months figuring out how to look like something other than a fairly geeky guy who has a nasally voice and is a bit anxious when engaged in public speaking, doing stuff like looking down at his notes a lot.

I'm not trying to negatively judge DeSantis as a person when I say the above, but all that stuff is important to the voter's ape brain.

I think he should lean into it. Yeah I’m pretty boring. Yeah I’m a bit awkward. But what I am is pretty damn competent and will do things that make your life better. Look at what I’ve done in Florida.

People might appreciate the authenticity. Ron might not be the person you want to have a beer but he would be the kind of person you’d want your daughter to marry.

Ron might not be the person you want to have a beer but he would be the kind of person you’d want your daughter to marry.

I doubt it. He's a slimy, dishonest, power-seeking lawyer.

That said, I am fine with a political leader being a slimy, dishonest, power-seeking lawyer. I don't have to find someone even slightly appealing on a personal level to prefer their policies. Trump is a piece of shit in his personal life, but I still like him better than quite a few honest and decent men.

People say he seems to have a real genuine relationship with his wife.

The one he cheated on with a porn star?

Cite? Sure you arent thinking of Trump?

More comments

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